Using FindMyiPhone would not necessarily be a crime then; you're tracking the phone, not the person, and you don't know if they still have it on them or not. Regarding divorces - shouldn't it be illegal to secretly install tracking software on someone else's phone? You don't get the right to do that to your spouse just because you married them. With your kids - you can tell them you're doing it.
I'm not finding anything to support your first assertion. Rebuilding in Iraq was partially done by US companies, but certainly not entirely. Iraq's debt-to-GDP ratio was fine until about a year or so ago, when oil prices dropped. Oil production was already back to pre-invasion levels by 2009. Most of Iraq's debt comes from before the invasion in 2003. If you have sources, I'd be happy to take a look, but I'm skeptical at the moment. Remember also that the US did contribute a substantial amount to Iraq in order to help rebuild; that doesn't excuse the invasion in the first place, of course, but it's also not territory that was seized.
I'm saying there's no evidence that they did anything other than failed to comply with record-keeping laws. All known examples of Powell emailing classified information are on the server he was supposed to use.
Remember, none of the materials on the Clinton server were marked classified at the time they landed there, only in retrospect were any of them deemed classified at the lowest level.
That's nottrue; she got materials that were marked classified, she got stuff that was Top Secret at the time of sending (even if it wasn't marked properly, she should have known it was as part of her duties), and only some of the stuff was retroactively classified.
Certainly, some of it is political grandstanding, but not all.
It's not a handwave; you moved the goalposts I set. If I ask a question and you reply with an answer to a different question, but claim it's close enough, I'm going to call you out on it. The US doesn't buy much oil from Iraq, and Afghanistan didn't even start commercially producing oil until 2013.
Well, we ostensibly learned from our earlier mistakes and sorta tried to be nice to Russia. The main problem was that the government collapse led to a shitload of mafia/gang activity, and that corruption hasn't really gone away. Add that to the fact that the Cold War was, well, cold, and it becomes hard for the West to directly penalize Russia for it. Eastern European countries could try that, because of the terrible things the USSR did to them, but even then Russia is still the most powerful in the area.
Puppet governments don't count. We're talking territorial expansion here - places where the U.S. Constitution and federal laws apply. It's not a "fake independence" approach; they are independent governments. The US obviously has a lot of sway over these places, but it's also not pulling all the strings either. There's a lot of difference between influence and direct control.
I'm really surprised most people don't seem to realize this. The US crushed the Iraqi military (both times). It's insurgencies that are hard to deal with, because they don't wear uniforms, it's mostly traps (IEDs) or surprised firefights. If the US had decided that the acceptable civilian casualty rate (from US forces) was a lot higher, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been much easier.
It's really ironic you make that comparison, considering the Treaty of Versailles really wasn't kind to them, nor was it fair. If it hadn't blamed Germany to (pretty much) the exclusion of all other parties, and hadn't saddled them with huge fines that crippled their economy, then the Weimar Republic would have been a lot more popular and Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. If you take away the population's anger and fear, then you can get them to stop tolerating the abuses of power.
The KKK is experiencing record lows in membership; the SPLC and ADL say their membership is between 3,000 - 8,000 members, and their factions are divided. Their political influence is basically nil at the federal level, and very small even in state governments. If social progress is undone, it won't be the KKK doing it, although I'm sure they'd like to think they played a part.
I direct you to this comment for a nice explanation as to why Hillary's case is different than Powell or Rice. The TL;DR version is that neither Powell nor Rice stored classified information from other agencies/departments (i.e., stuff they didn't have the authority to declassify) on their private server. They both failed to turn over non-classified emails, and are thus also in violation of records preservation laws, but neither mishandled classified information.
Normally, battery breakthrough headlines are about improvements to existing technology. Those do make it to market, but nobody ever pays attention because it's not in the marketing material. Who cares if you used a new technique in your manufacture; people just want to know how long it'll last. The headlines that are new tech often showcase stuff that'll be five or ten years out, at which point their advantages may have been erased by other new tech.
The host body copies the genome to itself, or at least functional parts of it, so it can recreate antibodies to it if it is ever encountered again.
This is categorically false, for the following reasons. 1) The host never intentionally incorporates viral or bacterial DNA into its own genome. Some viruses evolved the ability to make their genetic material integrate, but the host really doesn't want that to happen. 2) That's not how antibodies work. Antibodies and their selection is done by processing of foreign proteins and presenting them to B cells, some of which are very long-lived and which will multiply if their target is seen again. You don't need (or want) pathogen DNA for that.
To be sure, there's different amount of media coverage of Obama's and Trump's policies; it's not all partisanship, but in my experience (YMMV) a good chunk of it is.
And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage.
True, but I'm hearing a lot of "silence is consent" stuff from people who say if you aren't protesting Trump (or racist police, etc.) then you're on the side of the oppressor. Those people specifically are massive hypocrites; that's not to say all who oppose Trump are, but there certainly is a large group that is acting hypocritically.
I think pointing out that their silence helped lead to this can be helpful, as long as it's not done in a "haha, told you so" manner. If the partisanship isn't pointed out, people go back to ignoring it when their person is in power again.
Mass shootings (and serial killers, actually) are pretty proportional to race demographics, actually. Most are done by white guys because there are more whites than other groups.
I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.
And there's no reason you should; that's certainly on the record and really easy to verify. I could also definitely see him being transphobic, so that's something you could add in for various reasons to dislike him.
With regards to the cars: that's not what the link says. It says that it'll be extremely difficult to prove that they're safer, but not impossible that they are safer. Those are very different things.
The Nazis were not unique in their religious discrimination - in scale, okay, yes, but genociding a different religion was hardly novel. There have been plenty of religious or ethnic cleansings in history.
Does Milo demonize people based on race or sexual preference? He's a gay Jewish man with a black boyfriend. He's certainly demonized women for their gender, and he regularly demonizes Islam, but I hadn't seen race/sexual preference before. Admittedly, I also try to avoid him in general, so it's certainly possible I missed it.
No, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Free speech, the concept, also includes non-state actors, and it is antithetical to free speech to say "the government won't throw you in jail, but you'll get your ass kicked". In addition, many of the people who were assaulted or whose property was destroyed at Berkeley were *not* saying anything Nazi-like, nor were they even trying to attend Milo's talk.
It was unannounced because it went into effect pretty much at the same time it was announced; that is, there was no specific warning. People who were in the air were affected.
If you had kept reading, you would have seen that I said "I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon".
Fair point. I could see how Obama's felt more like a betrayal than Trump's did, and I wish I was surprised that people weren't talking about it as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Using FindMyiPhone would not necessarily be a crime then; you're tracking the phone, not the person, and you don't know if they still have it on them or not. Regarding divorces - shouldn't it be illegal to secretly install tracking software on someone else's phone? You don't get the right to do that to your spouse just because you married them. With your kids - you can tell them you're doing it.
I'm not finding anything to support your first assertion. Rebuilding in Iraq was partially done by US companies, but certainly not entirely. Iraq's debt-to-GDP ratio was fine until about a year or so ago, when oil prices dropped. Oil production was already back to pre-invasion levels by 2009. Most of Iraq's debt comes from before the invasion in 2003. If you have sources, I'd be happy to take a look, but I'm skeptical at the moment. Remember also that the US did contribute a substantial amount to Iraq in order to help rebuild; that doesn't excuse the invasion in the first place, of course, but it's also not territory that was seized.
Remember, none of the materials on the Clinton server were marked classified at the time they landed there, only in retrospect were any of them deemed classified at the lowest level.
That's not true; she got materials that were marked classified, she got stuff that was Top Secret at the time of sending (even if it wasn't marked properly, she should have known it was as part of her duties), and only some of the stuff was retroactively classified.
Certainly, some of it is political grandstanding, but not all.
It's not a handwave; you moved the goalposts I set. If I ask a question and you reply with an answer to a different question, but claim it's close enough, I'm going to call you out on it. The US doesn't buy much oil from Iraq, and Afghanistan didn't even start commercially producing oil until 2013.
Well, we ostensibly learned from our earlier mistakes and sorta tried to be nice to Russia. The main problem was that the government collapse led to a shitload of mafia/gang activity, and that corruption hasn't really gone away. Add that to the fact that the Cold War was, well, cold, and it becomes hard for the West to directly penalize Russia for it. Eastern European countries could try that, because of the terrible things the USSR did to them, but even then Russia is still the most powerful in the area.
Puppet governments don't count. We're talking territorial expansion here - places where the U.S. Constitution and federal laws apply. It's not a "fake independence" approach; they are independent governments. The US obviously has a lot of sway over these places, but it's also not pulling all the strings either. There's a lot of difference between influence and direct control.
I'm really surprised most people don't seem to realize this. The US crushed the Iraqi military (both times). It's insurgencies that are hard to deal with, because they don't wear uniforms, it's mostly traps (IEDs) or surprised firefights. If the US had decided that the acceptable civilian casualty rate (from US forces) was a lot higher, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been much easier.
Remind me again how much territory the US has seized because of oil in the last 50 or so years?
It's really ironic you make that comparison, considering the Treaty of Versailles really wasn't kind to them, nor was it fair. If it hadn't blamed Germany to (pretty much) the exclusion of all other parties, and hadn't saddled them with huge fines that crippled their economy, then the Weimar Republic would have been a lot more popular and Hitler wouldn't have risen to power. If you take away the population's anger and fear, then you can get them to stop tolerating the abuses of power.
The KKK is experiencing record lows in membership; the SPLC and ADL say their membership is between 3,000 - 8,000 members, and their factions are divided. Their political influence is basically nil at the federal level, and very small even in state governments. If social progress is undone, it won't be the KKK doing it, although I'm sure they'd like to think they played a part.
Without supporting Trump, Benghazi and Yemen are pretty different scenarios; the US was the aggressor in Yemen, for one.
I direct you to this comment for a nice explanation as to why Hillary's case is different than Powell or Rice. The TL;DR version is that neither Powell nor Rice stored classified information from other agencies/departments (i.e., stuff they didn't have the authority to declassify) on their private server. They both failed to turn over non-classified emails, and are thus also in violation of records preservation laws, but neither mishandled classified information.
Normally, battery breakthrough headlines are about improvements to existing technology. Those do make it to market, but nobody ever pays attention because it's not in the marketing material. Who cares if you used a new technique in your manufacture; people just want to know how long it'll last. The headlines that are new tech often showcase stuff that'll be five or ten years out, at which point their advantages may have been erased by other new tech.
The host body copies the genome to itself, or at least functional parts of it, so it can recreate antibodies to it if it is ever encountered again.
This is categorically false, for the following reasons. 1) The host never intentionally incorporates viral or bacterial DNA into its own genome. Some viruses evolved the ability to make their genetic material integrate, but the host really doesn't want that to happen. 2) That's not how antibodies work. Antibodies and their selection is done by processing of foreign proteins and presenting them to B cells, some of which are very long-lived and which will multiply if their target is seen again. You don't need (or want) pathogen DNA for that.
And, far more importantly, hating this use in no way implies supporting its passage.
True, but I'm hearing a lot of "silence is consent" stuff from people who say if you aren't protesting Trump (or racist police, etc.) then you're on the side of the oppressor. Those people specifically are massive hypocrites; that's not to say all who oppose Trump are, but there certainly is a large group that is acting hypocritically.
I think pointing out that their silence helped lead to this can be helpful, as long as it's not done in a "haha, told you so" manner. If the partisanship isn't pointed out, people go back to ignoring it when their person is in power again.
Here I'm just wondering why you decided to bring that phrase into this. You're the first one to bring it up.
Mass shootings (and serial killers, actually) are pretty proportional to race demographics, actually. Most are done by white guys because there are more whites than other groups.
I won't back down from his demonization of Islam or women, though.
And there's no reason you should; that's certainly on the record and really easy to verify. I could also definitely see him being transphobic, so that's something you could add in for various reasons to dislike him.
With regards to the cars: that's not what the link says. It says that it'll be extremely difficult to prove that they're safer, but not impossible that they are safer. Those are very different things.
The Nazis were not unique in their religious discrimination - in scale, okay, yes, but genociding a different religion was hardly novel. There have been plenty of religious or ethnic cleansings in history.
Does Milo demonize people based on race or sexual preference? He's a gay Jewish man with a black boyfriend. He's certainly demonized women for their gender, and he regularly demonizes Islam, but I hadn't seen race/sexual preference before. Admittedly, I also try to avoid him in general, so it's certainly possible I missed it.
No, the First Amendment only applies to the government. Free speech, the concept, also includes non-state actors, and it is antithetical to free speech to say "the government won't throw you in jail, but you'll get your ass kicked". In addition, many of the people who were assaulted or whose property was destroyed at Berkeley were *not* saying anything Nazi-like, nor were they even trying to attend Milo's talk.
It was unannounced because it went into effect pretty much at the same time it was announced; that is, there was no specific warning. People who were in the air were affected.
If you had kept reading, you would have seen that I said "I expected Trump to do something like this - not right away, but soon".
Fair point. I could see how Obama's felt more like a betrayal than Trump's did, and I wish I was surprised that people weren't talking about it as much.