A United States Congress without the wacko democratic representatives (Pelosi) and senators (Feinstein) from California in it can only be a massive improvement for the rest of us.
Let California secede and try to pay for all of it's socialist programs and "porous borders" through it's failing tax base and deficit-ridden state budgets. How long will that last?
Pay??? You do realize that California, along with almost every other democratic stronghold, contributes huge amounts of tax money to poorer states? Californians would have significantly more money on their budget, enough that they'd be able to implement their policies and probably cut taxes at the same time. I agree though, if the west and northeast coasts succeed, we'd all get an opportunity to finally see how the two parties float their sides, and I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.
This only affects taste though, not sugar cravings or your metabolism. Is insuling production affected only by actual sugar ingestion, or by the taste of sweetness?
Well, from what I can find and what I know, yes. Tasting sweetness alone triggers insulin, at least according to this research report, and a forum for diabetics agrees with this also. So, while artificial sweetener probably has less impact than consuming the real deal, it's obviously not a way to enjoy ridiculously sweet foods without any repercussions since you'll still have a blood sugar level crash afterwards, and this taste machine wouldn't provide much over artificial sweetener in terms of diabetes prevention or guilt-free sugar surges.
Diabetes can be caused by consuming too much sugar, but if you cut back on the amount but still preserve the same taste, you start treading down the very dangerous path of insulin resistance as well. Your body will stop making the proper amount of insulin for what it detects in taste because it's used to lack of sugar, and you'll wind up with diabetes all the same - it's only an effective way to allow somebody whose body already doesn't produce or absorb the proper amount of insulin to satisfy a sugar craving. However, this does have some great potential for MMO games and cooking websites and the like - while taste is arguably our least useful sense in such an environment, such a sensor might find a place for allowing people to preview recipes before they cook them or such.
That is only one side of the code (that they are presumably using in their closed source client). Where is the rest?
Ermm... This is pretty much a full blown client, which it says right on the giant README. On phones you have a point, but on the desktop you can use this and be guaranteed it's the same client. As for the rest, what does it matter? You see your password is being encrypted, and you can check it's not backdoored. If you trust modern encryption at all, then you know your secrets are safe because there's no way to crack your passwords unless your master password is literally "1234". If you don't trust encryption, well, I'm afraid you're a little out of luck for security then.:)
Oh look at that, a shill posting a boilerplate explanation from his company's own website.
Unless you have "evidence" to the contrary, I'm gonna say that your opinion is irrelevant because it isn't your own, your corporate pimps handed it down to you and you sucked it up like the good little whore you are.
This is where we thank the wonders of open-source, so you can freely read the code and see for yourself how it works.
Not that I suspect, of course, that you ever have done that, ever wanted to do that, or ever will do that. At least I'm the honest whore.
I think Hillary precisely knew what she was doing when she supported the destruction of Libya and Syria.
Examples of generic dictatorships being better than theocracies are not uncommon in recent history,
and plenty of people called it that Libya and Syria would turn from somewhat stable countries with a functioning
economy and industry, into destroyed messes where exodus is the only option in the aftermath since anything
that would provide jobs and income would be destroyed in the process and a whole generation doomed to complete poverty having to relocate.
The only way democratic overthrows work is when they happen without any external influence whatsoever. That means that the people as a whole of a nation have taken proper hold of the nation's infrastructure before the overthrow, ensured that the overthrow would happen with minimum destruction,
and a organized system was planned to keep everything working and functional afterwards. It takes time, sacrifice, patience, and most importantly self-determination, but it ensures that you won't have millions of people being forced to leave the country in wake of ruins and non-function.
This is some basic shit most historians and sociologists are aware of. I refuse to believe that Hillary was such a dumb idiot that she didn't as well.
All her stupid decisions of support come out of agenda rather than stupidity, is what i feel.
The United States would never have been formed without the French's naval assistance and a certain gay Germany general, and I'd argue they did pretty damn well...
Eh, come on. I do agree with you in that the FBI doesn't really have anything to go on; it's not like Russia is going to turn over server logs, and Russia hasn't shown any interest in stopping their own hackers. Still, I heavily disagree with your justification; you're essentially using Putin's very same justifications, but of course you act upset in return. He's posting very pro-US messages, he appears to be doing so in English, and there are rumors connecting him as a former soldier no less. That obviously doesn't prove anything for certain, but it would be good will of the FBI to provide some assistance given that he appears to be linked in multiple ways. no? If this very same hacker posted in Russian, posted Russian propaganda, and was rumored to be a former KGB agent, you would think it's justified to assume he's Russian, yes?
Secondly, if you know exactly where a hacker is located, there's no need to investigate him any farther because you've already compromised him at that point, the law hasn't really caught up to that yet. It'd be the same if the police demanded to have an eyewitness and video proof before they opened a case; if the FBI demands he's already compromised, they may as well refuse to help at all.
Now, whether I think he should be investigated is a different story altogether, I don't mind the Russians getting a taste of their own medicine, but you may as well say straight up it's in return for their lack of cooperation - don't try to pretend it's anything else.
I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following:
1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump.
2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin.
3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably.
Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers, he would have been better off for it. After watching this event live, Trump seems like a candidate that's trying to lose.
Eh? I'm not so sure I agree with that sentiment. Clinton definitely won the first debate, I mean, that was what sent Trump into his massive death spiral. Before, they'd actually been approaching ~ neck and neck, and her bringing up the Miss Universe model was particularly effective. The second debate was also a clear Clinton victory; she consistently dominated throughout, and once again, Trump completely spiraled out of control both during and afterwards. The third one I'd actually say was a Trump "victory", in that it was by far his best performance and her worst, but he really screwed it up by showing he has the emotional maturity of a preschooler by refusing to respect the people's wishes. The dinner, in contrast, hasn't really had time yet to show any results, and while I think he acted in a manner unbecoming of a president, he's been this way since the start of his campaign. Do you rememher him nicknaming all of his Republican competitors? He spouted a lot of very similar rhetoric that he now uses against Clinton, and if the dinner surprised you on that front, well, I think you're wishful overlooking his personality.
Now, those were measurements based on their ratings afterward. If we're measuring this like a traditional debate, where you say who won by providing the best support for their case, then Clinton blew Trump away on every point. She's been very consistent with providing her policies and has actually done a very good job of showing what she's intend to do as president. Whether she'll manage to fulfill it or not, we'll see, but I have no doubt what her intentions are. Trump, on the other hand, rambles off on irrelevant tangents and has to bullshot his way through every question because he has no idea about anything related to being a pesident, has an uncontrollable tendency to exaggerate and even spout straight up lies, and can't make up his mind on any issue. I mean, how often has he changed his policy on immigration? How often did he run his mouth off about Mr. Obama despite the birth certificate having been available for years? His basic honesty and truthfulness are non-existant, he has some extremely shady ties that he refuses to speak at all of, and his well documented history of business goes against literally everything he says he stands for. A man who has a history of exploiting his workers, outsourcing all of his labor unessecarily because it's slightly cheaper, and hides his failures and debt should say a lot about that person, and exactly what he would do as president. Not once during any of the debates has he even tried to address any one of these issues, and indeed, he's really magnified them and exposed who he truly is. The only thing left is to see who the United States wants to characterize itself as.
Try replacing "Venus" with "Earth" in the summary. Makes you wonder if Venus is going to be our future, particularly if this article's scenario comes to pass...
I've been recovering from some injuries, including surgery to my neck, so I have been stuck on a couch in front of netflix under orders from the doctors to do nothing and be bored while I heal. Since May, I've had 1 month initial, then another 2 1/2 months recovery time, not allowed to drive (painkillers), essentially prisoner in my own house.
Apart from being a completely unhealthy thing to do and contrary to my normal life style, I hadn't watched TV regularly for almost 2 years so I was kinda grateful I had nf to spare my sanity. I used the time to catch up on lots of stuff. Six weeks seems to be about when it got stale and then took about 2 weeks of absence before I could watch it again.
Like anything I found you have to leave it and do something else for a while. It's definitely possible to get bored with it. I considered popcorn time, but I just can't watch that much TV.
Frankly, I can't wait to be able to go for a run, cycle, swim or any physical activity as soon as I can.
I had an injury a while back that required me to lose a week without doing any sort of exercise, which included long walks, and so I spent it in a similar manner - I was so sick of binge watching Netflix afterwards that I almost canceled my subscription, but I can't imagine having to spend months in that state. Best wishes for a speedy(er) recovery!
Although this is highly impractical, as you can't fit 100,000 people in a space station nor do they have money for such a thing, the idea of a country based solely on personal membership as opposed to land borders is an intriguing one...
That's kind of a cute concern to have, honestly. These people are going to starve to death long before they suffer the effects of radiation, because we *still* don't know how to grow anything on the moon, nor could they carry enough with them even if we did. Focusing on basic necessities first would be a bit more prudent...
If you count the number of times you get to be 12 in seconds, you get to be 12 over 30 million times. That's a lot of times to be 12!
And we get to be any other age for 2,806,704,000 seconds. That's two trillion, eight hundred and six billion, seven hundred and four million. Thirty million is rather paltry in comparison.
...
It's also rather depressing to think that even if we counted a number every second of everyday, for our entire lives, we'd never even make it to three trillion. Puts your life into perspective...
I'm in the US and i had a savings account when I was that age. I wasn't able to write checks, but I could deposit them myself. My parents had created the account for me when I was very young, and I was able to do some of my own banking with it when I was around 10 years old.
I lived in the US as well, but I had a full banking account when I was 10 - I could both deposit and withdraw money. The bank I had offered it as a service to kids, and while I can't speak for others, I think it was great to get a feel for what working with money is like while the only thing on the line was my rather meager allowance.
She has the full force of the Russians bearing down on her, trying to get Trump elected, and they had to resort to faking a leak. If they really couldn't find anything on her, and they don't have any political American overseers or bribes or whatever, Clinton might actually be better than we thought. God knows what would happen if these same hackers rooted around Donald Trump's stuff....
No one thinks it's suspicious that the DNC is the target of frequent and recurring attacks, while the Republicans haven't been touched once, and that Trump refuses to blame Russia for anything? No one thinks it's suspicious that several of his advisers have strong ties to Russia? No one thinks it's suspicious he's directly paid by Russia? Good god people, skepticism is helpful in the right amounts, but to pretend this isn't Putin's way of helping his financially submissive bitch into office is naive beyond belief.
I guess all I'm saying is that is time to reserve mathematical computer language to mathematicians, and leave normal computer language to normal people. Seriously, how many people do you know who say "2^3.1459" when ordering a couple of cheese burgers?
Umm... that example doesn't even work, because ^ isn't even a letter or a word. It's a symbol... the kind you use when writing, not speaking. You speak English, yes? On that note, plenty of people where I live say (linked because Slashdot doesn't support unicode) as a greeting, and yes, that is the 100% correct form. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a written letter and a spoken sound; and frankly, you have clearly never programmed before either. There's a reason why it is the way it is.
I would rather use the language that enables the most users to instruct their computers on what they want done. Stupid battles over curly braces and punctuation does nothing to further this goal. Humans have understood how to interpret human language, it is high time we taught our machines to do the same.
You completely dodged his point. Seriously, go to a mathematician sometime, tell him to write everything in pure English. None of this quadratic stuff, we only live for "x equals minus b plus or minus the square root of b squared plus 4 times the value of a times c divided by the value of 2 times the value of a". Because that's much more accessible and readable than some scratch marks, clearly.
One pixel changed, two pixels change, three pixels change, it's not hard to beat a hash. Of course, you could require that they examine every single pixel in a movie file and flag those with a ~5% margin, and in the very same move destroy YouTube. Hell, you even have a new DDOS method, just upload a 99999999 hour mflagof a black screen. Once again, the copyright industry shooting itself in the foot.
I propose a minimum knowledge requirement of the internet and basic computer literacy for every politician, along with the understanding that bribes are illegal. I don't think having even just one of those would be enough to think of a law as asinine as this one...
you miss the point. When he reported the spying on Americans by individuals, he DID break the law, BUT, it was for a good reason. Had he stopped there, I would be celebrating this and in FULL agreement with you.
BUT, HE CONTINUED SPEAKING. And when he spoke about how we spy on other nations, along with terrorists, he committed treason and HARMED not just America, but the entire WEST. Basically, he helped Russia, China, AQ, North Korea, Iran, Bhurma, etc.
Worse, it is certain that BOTH Russia and china have decrypted the other files that he did not post, but allowed them to have access to.
Would you say the same thing if an ex-KGB official defected to America, and revealed that Russia was spying on all western nations, you would support extraditing him to where he is certain to receive the death penalty?
Remember, Snowden may have revealed the spying programs, but there hasn't been a shift in the way terrorism works - furthermore, our intelligence has been getting weaker and weaker because the CIA and NSA have too much crap to sift trough. Terrorists haven't yet used encryption, but they got by with just plaintext because the government was too busy reading your emails instead. On top of that, he's only revealed the rough process behind it - he never took a copy of a program with him or otherwise revealed how they worked. I disagree with that part of the spiel too, but he's looking at either life in exile in Russia or certain death - given that his intent was clearly not to cause harm (he could have done significantly more damage if he wanted to), and that he continues to display an interest in returning and otherwise participating in American society, he should be pardoned of the charges.
George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist too, you know.
The migration of liberty activists to New Hampshire will welcome him should we ever win independence. The movement is strong gaining new movers every week and unlike other movements has only grown larger over the years. There is no place in New Hampshire that you won't find a growing, active, no thriving community of activists who are fighting government and we're going to win because we have time. We have patience. The people want liberty will and are moving for it. And unlike setting up a new country or trying to take over one there are no restrictions within the boarders of the United States to hamper the movement. If you believe that the state should not utilize violence to achieve political goals (like educating our children, feeding our hungry, or locking up people who've committed no violence against another) then you should move to New Hampshire. We want to get rid of drivers licenses, license plates, and having to ask the government permission to earn a a living. Keene, the town where I live, of less than 30,000 people is already the # one place in the world for BitCoins. We can build other non-governmental systems that don't utilize force to ensure the safety of our restaurants. We accept that life has some risk and that it's not worth punishing everybody for the actions of a few (just because there are a few drunks on the roads does not mean the state should have a right to utilise violence blatantly in disregard for all other driver's rights on the road). We don't need government feeding out hungry or stealing money from the people whom thus become dependant on government hands out to feed and brainwash (ie educate) their children.
Speaking as a (current but living outside the state) resident of New Hampshire myself, you do realize we get what we pay for, yes? We have no advanced social services, our schools are pathetic compared to any other New England state, we have severe and frequently recurring issues with the funding of our healthcare and systems, our roads are so horribly maintained that they're unsafe to drive on in some places, and we have a pretty stifled economy that looks better than it is because of people commuting across the border to Mass every day. New Hampshire is an extremely interesting state, and I like it, but to pretend its paradise and that government provides no benefits is incredibly misleading.
Secondly, I actually want to challenge you on your philosophy. You want an intentionally libertarian state, but how exactly do you intend to fix our issues? How do you think the free state project is going to provide care for the elderly and sick? What about education, who is going to fund that? The problem you have with these is that you say they should be privately funded. How about a family that isn't rich, but solidly upper-middle class? If they had children, they could afford to lavish them with the very best education, the parents could ensure they get the best healthcare, and the family as a whole simply gets significantly better benefits from life. These people get better jobs, which leads to more money, and so on and so on. Do you think have a rich elite at the very top of the poor is a good idea? Furthermore, what about the rich who fund this? If I pay for your library, I should get to dictate what goes into it, correct? What's to stop me from stocking the whole thing with books that heavily favor my opinion of history and such? It would be a library, sure, but it wouldn't be very useful at all, and it's very unlikely there'd be any competition because you'd be too poor to run one either. Lastly, what about people who do need collective help? What about the disabled or the unemployed? Under your philosophy, there only approach to help is to either beg for help on their knees, or die when they can't feed themselves. Is that really what you stand for?
Lastly, I'd also like to mention your movement. The Free Keene people as a group are not very nice, and in parti
The point of this isn't to ban a harmless ingredient, but to ban a harmless ingredient that could eventually prove to not be so harmless. Completely putting aside the potential long term interactions on the human body - which is hugely significant, lead and arsenic don't cause their damage in one day either - "antibacterial" soaps are essentially the same thing as "antibiotic" soaps, and you may see where this is going. 99.9% of the time, killing off all these harmless bacteria doesn't yield any benefit, but it will breed stronger bacteria over time, and that can lead tro some very nasty things. Gonorrhea, for example, is an STD that was once easily curable, but is now becoming harder and harder to treat, and I believe there is a new strain popping up for which there is no cure known at the present time. When such a disease appears and is immune to our easiest form of defense, it has the potential to become an unstoppable epidemic, and again, there's no benefit at all to killing otherwise harmless bacteria (which may even help strengthen our immune systems).
Secondly, these soaps are snake oil, and in more ways than one. Antibacterial soaps do absolutely nothing to stop viruses, so if you think this soap will help protect you from the common cold or the flu, think again. It's also no more effective than normal soap, so you're paying more for a completely useless product, and I doubt many people know this - at the very least, stronger labeling is definitely required. Bait-and-switch, along with the false sense of security, is an issue.
And if all that doesn't convince you, than consider this: we already have a product for all of this, and it's known as hand sanitizer. If there is a place or occasion where you really need to disinfect your hands, use this stuff; it's cheap, effective, usable on the go (the places where you probably need it the most), and bacteria isn't going to be adapting to alcohol anytime soon. As a result, you limit bacterial adaptability, you save money, you destroy viruses, and you don't play Russian Roulette with our ecosystem. Common sense, people.
Slashdot Mirror
A United States Congress without the wacko democratic representatives (Pelosi) and senators (Feinstein) from California in it can only be a massive improvement for the rest of us.
Let California secede and try to pay for all of it's socialist programs and "porous borders" through it's failing tax base and deficit-ridden state budgets. How long will that last?
Pay??? You do realize that California, along with almost every other democratic stronghold, contributes huge amounts of tax money to poorer states? Californians would have significantly more money on their budget, enough that they'd be able to implement their policies and probably cut taxes at the same time. I agree though, if the west and northeast coasts succeed, we'd all get an opportunity to finally see how the two parties float their sides, and I personally wouldn't mind to see my taxes support my own state, not some farmer in Nebraska.
Sorry Hitler, not your election. I'm afraid you'll have to settle for your best bud instead.
This only affects taste though, not sugar cravings or your metabolism. Is insuling production affected only by actual sugar ingestion, or by the taste of sweetness?
Well, from what I can find and what I know, yes. Tasting sweetness alone triggers insulin, at least according to this research report, and a forum for diabetics agrees with this also. So, while artificial sweetener probably has less impact than consuming the real deal, it's obviously not a way to enjoy ridiculously sweet foods without any repercussions since you'll still have a blood sugar level crash afterwards, and this taste machine wouldn't provide much over artificial sweetener in terms of diabetes prevention or guilt-free sugar surges.
Diabetes can be caused by consuming too much sugar, but if you cut back on the amount but still preserve the same taste, you start treading down the very dangerous path of insulin resistance as well. Your body will stop making the proper amount of insulin for what it detects in taste because it's used to lack of sugar, and you'll wind up with diabetes all the same - it's only an effective way to allow somebody whose body already doesn't produce or absorb the proper amount of insulin to satisfy a sugar craving. However, this does have some great potential for MMO games and cooking websites and the like - while taste is arguably our least useful sense in such an environment, such a sensor might find a place for allowing people to preview recipes before they cook them or such.
That is only one side of the code (that they are presumably using in their closed source client). Where is the rest?
Ermm... This is pretty much a full blown client, which it says right on the giant README. On phones you have a point, but on the desktop you can use this and be guaranteed it's the same client. As for the rest, what does it matter? You see your password is being encrypted, and you can check it's not backdoored. If you trust modern encryption at all, then you know your secrets are safe because there's no way to crack your passwords unless your master password is literally "1234". If you don't trust encryption, well, I'm afraid you're a little out of luck for security then. :)
Oh look at that, a shill posting a boilerplate explanation from his company's own website.
Unless you have "evidence" to the contrary, I'm gonna say that your opinion is irrelevant because it isn't your own, your corporate pimps handed it down to you and you sucked it up like the good little whore you are.
This is where we thank the wonders of open-source, so you can freely read the code and see for yourself how it works.
Not that I suspect, of course, that you ever have done that, ever wanted to do that, or ever will do that. At least I'm the honest whore.
I think Hillary precisely knew what she was doing when she supported the destruction of Libya and Syria. Examples of generic dictatorships being better than theocracies are not uncommon in recent history, and plenty of people called it that Libya and Syria would turn from somewhat stable countries with a functioning economy and industry, into destroyed messes where exodus is the only option in the aftermath since anything that would provide jobs and income would be destroyed in the process and a whole generation doomed to complete poverty having to relocate.
The only way democratic overthrows work is when they happen without any external influence whatsoever. That means that the people as a whole of a nation have taken proper hold of the nation's infrastructure before the overthrow, ensured that the overthrow would happen with minimum destruction, and a organized system was planned to keep everything working and functional afterwards. It takes time, sacrifice, patience, and most importantly self-determination, but it ensures that you won't have millions of people being forced to leave the country in wake of ruins and non-function. This is some basic shit most historians and sociologists are aware of. I refuse to believe that Hillary was such a dumb idiot that she didn't as well. All her stupid decisions of support come out of agenda rather than stupidity, is what i feel.
The United States would never have been formed without the French's naval assistance and a certain gay Germany general, and I'd argue they did pretty damn well...
Eh, come on. I do agree with you in that the FBI doesn't really have anything to go on; it's not like Russia is going to turn over server logs, and Russia hasn't shown any interest in stopping their own hackers. Still, I heavily disagree with your justification; you're essentially using Putin's very same justifications, but of course you act upset in return. He's posting very pro-US messages, he appears to be doing so in English, and there are rumors connecting him as a former soldier no less. That obviously doesn't prove anything for certain, but it would be good will of the FBI to provide some assistance given that he appears to be linked in multiple ways. no? If this very same hacker posted in Russian, posted Russian propaganda, and was rumored to be a former KGB agent, you would think it's justified to assume he's Russian, yes?
Secondly, if you know exactly where a hacker is located, there's no need to investigate him any farther because you've already compromised him at that point, the law hasn't really caught up to that yet. It'd be the same if the police demanded to have an eyewitness and video proof before they opened a case; if the FBI demands he's already compromised, they may as well refuse to help at all.
Now, whether I think he should be investigated is a different story altogether, I don't mind the Russians getting a taste of their own medicine, but you may as well say straight up it's in return for their lack of cooperation - don't try to pretend it's anything else.
I watched all 3, and the way I judge them is as following: 1st debate: Clinton lost *less* than Trump. 2nd debate: Trump won by a small margin. 3rd debate: Trump won, but the "nasty woman" comment diminished his victory considerably. Alfred E. Smith Dinner: Trump tanked hardcore. He was doing well until he started in on how corrupt Hillary is. It was not in the spirit of the gathering. Clinton also took mean-spirited pot-shots at him, but he started it. If he had avoided his comments and let her make hers, he would have been better off for it. After watching this event live, Trump seems like a candidate that's trying to lose.
Eh? I'm not so sure I agree with that sentiment. Clinton definitely won the first debate, I mean, that was what sent Trump into his massive death spiral. Before, they'd actually been approaching ~ neck and neck, and her bringing up the Miss Universe model was particularly effective. The second debate was also a clear Clinton victory; she consistently dominated throughout, and once again, Trump completely spiraled out of control both during and afterwards. The third one I'd actually say was a Trump "victory", in that it was by far his best performance and her worst, but he really screwed it up by showing he has the emotional maturity of a preschooler by refusing to respect the people's wishes. The dinner, in contrast, hasn't really had time yet to show any results, and while I think he acted in a manner unbecoming of a president, he's been this way since the start of his campaign. Do you rememher him nicknaming all of his Republican competitors? He spouted a lot of very similar rhetoric that he now uses against Clinton, and if the dinner surprised you on that front, well, I think you're wishful overlooking his personality.
Now, those were measurements based on their ratings afterward. If we're measuring this like a traditional debate, where you say who won by providing the best support for their case, then Clinton blew Trump away on every point. She's been very consistent with providing her policies and has actually done a very good job of showing what she's intend to do as president. Whether she'll manage to fulfill it or not, we'll see, but I have no doubt what her intentions are. Trump, on the other hand, rambles off on irrelevant tangents and has to bullshot his way through every question because he has no idea about anything related to being a pesident, has an uncontrollable tendency to exaggerate and even spout straight up lies, and can't make up his mind on any issue. I mean, how often has he changed his policy on immigration? How often did he run his mouth off about Mr. Obama despite the birth certificate having been available for years? His basic honesty and truthfulness are non-existant, he has some extremely shady ties that he refuses to speak at all of, and his well documented history of business goes against literally everything he says he stands for. A man who has a history of exploiting his workers, outsourcing all of his labor unessecarily because it's slightly cheaper, and hides his failures and debt should say a lot about that person, and exactly what he would do as president. Not once during any of the debates has he even tried to address any one of these issues, and indeed, he's really magnified them and exposed who he truly is. The only thing left is to see who the United States wants to characterize itself as.
Try replacing "Venus" with "Earth" in the summary. Makes you wonder if Venus is going to be our future, particularly if this article's scenario comes to pass...
I've been recovering from some injuries, including surgery to my neck, so I have been stuck on a couch in front of netflix under orders from the doctors to do nothing and be bored while I heal. Since May, I've had 1 month initial, then another 2 1/2 months recovery time, not allowed to drive (painkillers), essentially prisoner in my own house.
Apart from being a completely unhealthy thing to do and contrary to my normal life style, I hadn't watched TV regularly for almost 2 years so I was kinda grateful I had nf to spare my sanity. I used the time to catch up on lots of stuff. Six weeks seems to be about when it got stale and then took about 2 weeks of absence before I could watch it again.
Like anything I found you have to leave it and do something else for a while. It's definitely possible to get bored with it. I considered popcorn time, but I just can't watch that much TV.
Frankly, I can't wait to be able to go for a run, cycle, swim or any physical activity as soon as I can.
I had an injury a while back that required me to lose a week without doing any sort of exercise, which included long walks, and so I spent it in a similar manner - I was so sick of binge watching Netflix afterwards that I almost canceled my subscription, but I can't imagine having to spend months in that state. Best wishes for a speedy(er) recovery!
Although this is highly impractical, as you can't fit 100,000 people in a space station nor do they have money for such a thing, the idea of a country based solely on personal membership as opposed to land borders is an intriguing one...
That's kind of a cute concern to have, honestly. These people are going to starve to death long before they suffer the effects of radiation, because we *still* don't know how to grow anything on the moon, nor could they carry enough with them even if we did. Focusing on basic necessities first would be a bit more prudent...
If you count the number of times you get to be 12 in seconds, you get to be 12 over 30 million times. That's a lot of times to be 12!
And we get to be any other age for 2,806,704,000 seconds. That's two trillion, eight hundred and six billion, seven hundred and four million. Thirty million is rather paltry in comparison.
It's also rather depressing to think that even if we counted a number every second of everyday, for our entire lives, we'd never even make it to three trillion. Puts your life into perspective...
I'm in the US and i had a savings account when I was that age. I wasn't able to write checks, but I could deposit them myself. My parents had created the account for me when I was very young, and I was able to do some of my own banking with it when I was around 10 years old.
I lived in the US as well, but I had a full banking account when I was 10 - I could both deposit and withdraw money. The bank I had offered it as a service to kids, and while I can't speak for others, I think it was great to get a feel for what working with money is like while the only thing on the line was my rather meager allowance.
Jose and a friend planned to buy instruments, play music, get rich and buy a mansion by subscribing to the service.
Ah, the ignorance of youth.
Everyone gets their harsh lesson in reality sooner or later.
Let them enjoy it, you only get to be 12 once. At the very least, you have to credit them for their rather enterprising ambition...
Does this mean that the world will stay peaceful for all of human existence + 95 years?
She has the full force of the Russians bearing down on her, trying to get Trump elected, and they had to resort to faking a leak. If they really couldn't find anything on her, and they don't have any political American overseers or bribes or whatever, Clinton might actually be better than we thought. God knows what would happen if these same hackers rooted around Donald Trump's stuff....
No one thinks it's suspicious that the DNC is the target of frequent and recurring attacks, while the Republicans haven't been touched once, and that Trump refuses to blame Russia for anything? No one thinks it's suspicious that several of his advisers have strong ties to Russia? No one thinks it's suspicious he's directly paid by Russia? Good god people, skepticism is helpful in the right amounts, but to pretend this isn't Putin's way of helping his financially submissive bitch into office is naive beyond belief.
I guess all I'm saying is that is time to reserve mathematical computer language to mathematicians, and leave normal computer language to normal people. Seriously, how many people do you know who say "2^3.1459" when ordering a couple of cheese burgers?
Umm... that example doesn't even work, because ^ isn't even a letter or a word. It's a symbol... the kind you use when writing, not speaking. You speak English, yes? On that note, plenty of people where I live say (linked because Slashdot doesn't support unicode) as a greeting, and yes, that is the 100% correct form. You don't seem to be able to tell the difference between a written letter and a spoken sound; and frankly, you have clearly never programmed before either. There's a reason why it is the way it is.
I would rather use the language that enables the most users to instruct their computers on what they want done. Stupid battles over curly braces and punctuation does nothing to further this goal. Humans have understood how to interpret human language, it is high time we taught our machines to do the same.
You completely dodged his point. Seriously, go to a mathematician sometime, tell him to write everything in pure English. None of this quadratic stuff, we only live for "x equals minus b plus or minus the square root of b squared plus 4 times the value of a times c divided by the value of 2 times the value of a". Because that's much more accessible and readable than some scratch marks, clearly.
Next up will be the elimination of slang, yes?
One pixel changed, two pixels change, three pixels change, it's not hard to beat a hash. Of course, you could require that they examine every single pixel in a movie file and flag those with a ~5% margin, and in the very same move destroy YouTube. Hell, you even have a new DDOS method, just upload a 99999999 hour mflagof a black screen. Once again, the copyright industry shooting itself in the foot.
I propose a minimum knowledge requirement of the internet and basic computer literacy for every politician, along with the understanding that bribes are illegal. I don't think having even just one of those would be enough to think of a law as asinine as this one...
you miss the point. When he reported the spying on Americans by individuals, he DID break the law, BUT, it was for a good reason. Had he stopped there, I would be celebrating this and in FULL agreement with you. BUT, HE CONTINUED SPEAKING. And when he spoke about how we spy on other nations, along with terrorists, he committed treason and HARMED not just America, but the entire WEST. Basically, he helped Russia, China, AQ, North Korea, Iran, Bhurma, etc. Worse, it is certain that BOTH Russia and china have decrypted the other files that he did not post, but allowed them to have access to.
Would you say the same thing if an ex-KGB official defected to America, and revealed that Russia was spying on all western nations, you would support extraditing him to where he is certain to receive the death penalty?
Remember, Snowden may have revealed the spying programs, but there hasn't been a shift in the way terrorism works - furthermore, our intelligence has been getting weaker and weaker because the CIA and NSA have too much crap to sift trough. Terrorists haven't yet used encryption, but they got by with just plaintext because the government was too busy reading your emails instead. On top of that, he's only revealed the rough process behind it - he never took a copy of a program with him or otherwise revealed how they worked. I disagree with that part of the spiel too, but he's looking at either life in exile in Russia or certain death - given that his intent was clearly not to cause harm (he could have done significantly more damage if he wanted to), and that he continues to display an interest in returning and otherwise participating in American society, he should be pardoned of the charges.
George Washington was a traitor and a terrorist too, you know.
The migration of liberty activists to New Hampshire will welcome him should we ever win independence. The movement is strong gaining new movers every week and unlike other movements has only grown larger over the years. There is no place in New Hampshire that you won't find a growing, active, no thriving community of activists who are fighting government and we're going to win because we have time. We have patience. The people want liberty will and are moving for it. And unlike setting up a new country or trying to take over one there are no restrictions within the boarders of the United States to hamper the movement. If you believe that the state should not utilize violence to achieve political goals (like educating our children, feeding our hungry, or locking up people who've committed no violence against another) then you should move to New Hampshire. We want to get rid of drivers licenses, license plates, and having to ask the government permission to earn a a living. Keene, the town where I live, of less than 30,000 people is already the # one place in the world for BitCoins. We can build other non-governmental systems that don't utilize force to ensure the safety of our restaurants. We accept that life has some risk and that it's not worth punishing everybody for the actions of a few (just because there are a few drunks on the roads does not mean the state should have a right to utilise violence blatantly in disregard for all other driver's rights on the road). We don't need government feeding out hungry or stealing money from the people whom thus become dependant on government hands out to feed and brainwash (ie educate) their children.
www.freekeene.com www.freestateproject.org www.freetalklive.com
Speaking as a (current but living outside the state) resident of New Hampshire myself, you do realize we get what we pay for, yes? We have no advanced social services, our schools are pathetic compared to any other New England state, we have severe and frequently recurring issues with the funding of our healthcare and systems, our roads are so horribly maintained that they're unsafe to drive on in some places, and we have a pretty stifled economy that looks better than it is because of people commuting across the border to Mass every day. New Hampshire is an extremely interesting state, and I like it, but to pretend its paradise and that government provides no benefits is incredibly misleading.
Secondly, I actually want to challenge you on your philosophy. You want an intentionally libertarian state, but how exactly do you intend to fix our issues? How do you think the free state project is going to provide care for the elderly and sick? What about education, who is going to fund that? The problem you have with these is that you say they should be privately funded. How about a family that isn't rich, but solidly upper-middle class? If they had children, they could afford to lavish them with the very best education, the parents could ensure they get the best healthcare, and the family as a whole simply gets significantly better benefits from life. These people get better jobs, which leads to more money, and so on and so on. Do you think have a rich elite at the very top of the poor is a good idea? Furthermore, what about the rich who fund this? If I pay for your library, I should get to dictate what goes into it, correct? What's to stop me from stocking the whole thing with books that heavily favor my opinion of history and such? It would be a library, sure, but it wouldn't be very useful at all, and it's very unlikely there'd be any competition because you'd be too poor to run one either. Lastly, what about people who do need collective help? What about the disabled or the unemployed? Under your philosophy, there only approach to help is to either beg for help on their knees, or die when they can't feed themselves. Is that really what you stand for?
Lastly, I'd also like to mention your movement. The Free Keene people as a group are not very nice, and in parti
The point of this isn't to ban a harmless ingredient, but to ban a harmless ingredient that could eventually prove to not be so harmless. Completely putting aside the potential long term interactions on the human body - which is hugely significant, lead and arsenic don't cause their damage in one day either - "antibacterial" soaps are essentially the same thing as "antibiotic" soaps, and you may see where this is going. 99.9% of the time, killing off all these harmless bacteria doesn't yield any benefit, but it will breed stronger bacteria over time, and that can lead tro some very nasty things. Gonorrhea, for example, is an STD that was once easily curable, but is now becoming harder and harder to treat, and I believe there is a new strain popping up for which there is no cure known at the present time. When such a disease appears and is immune to our easiest form of defense, it has the potential to become an unstoppable epidemic, and again, there's no benefit at all to killing otherwise harmless bacteria (which may even help strengthen our immune systems).
Secondly, these soaps are snake oil, and in more ways than one. Antibacterial soaps do absolutely nothing to stop viruses, so if you think this soap will help protect you from the common cold or the flu, think again. It's also no more effective than normal soap, so you're paying more for a completely useless product, and I doubt many people know this - at the very least, stronger labeling is definitely required. Bait-and-switch, along with the false sense of security, is an issue.
And if all that doesn't convince you, than consider this: we already have a product for all of this, and it's known as hand sanitizer. If there is a place or occasion where you really need to disinfect your hands, use this stuff; it's cheap, effective, usable on the go (the places where you probably need it the most), and bacteria isn't going to be adapting to alcohol anytime soon. As a result, you limit bacterial adaptability, you save money, you destroy viruses, and you don't play Russian Roulette with our ecosystem. Common sense, people.