This is just some kind of grandstanding. Even if Zuckerburg didn't have the controlling shares to stop this I think other key share holders would stop him from being ousted. Despite all the main stream media hate I think Zuckerburg has handled the "scandals" pretty well and most shareholders know this.
Grandstanding with a purpose though.
Right now he's chairman & CEO, if other share-holders vote overwhelmingly for him to resign as chairman he'll probably give up one of his titles or at least find some individual they support to give a senior title.
Even if other share-holders vote as a majority for him to stay, but there's still a strong minority opposed, then he'll probably feel pressured to change things to bring that minority back onside.
If the vote sputters out, well then his leadership is strengthened and he'll be able to act with a bit less opposition.
but at least for that stretch productivity will be way up.
No. Output might go up, but it'll likely do so less than proportionally to the hours worked.
You're picking straws over terminology.
Productivity per hour will go down.
But productivity per employee will go up.
And it might even go down if people are so tired they're making errors that cost time to fix.
If you're making 1.5 times as much stuff but taking twice the time then productivity (at least if you use the word to mean what it actually does) falls by 25%. This has been known since forever.
Yes, that's a factor as well. It's like the Laffer curve, too little it's efficient but you get nothing, too much and you get diminishing returns.
There's no reason to think 40 hours is the magic number, it's going to vary by individuals and it's going to vary by jobs.
In some cases there's people who can see a substantial productivity increase going from 70 to 80 hour work weeks. On other cases someone might be outrageously productive in only 5 hours a week, but beyond that they're just not that useful.
I work less now than I ever have, and I'm vastly more productive than I've ever been.
This is for a couple of reasons.
1) I can take public transportation, and triage emails before I get in in the morning, and take care of a few things after I leave so there's less built up in the morning. I show up with a list of what needs to be done, and no need to waste 20 minutes filtering.
You're still working, you just found a way to do some work during your commute.
2) My shit is organized. I put a lot of time and effort into that, and I offload a lot of mental energy by not having to remember a lot of things. That means I've got a lot more mental energy to spend on what I really need to be thinking about.
That's working more effectively, but it doesn't mean that you're more productive by working less.
3) When I'm not productive I leave. Ass in the seat doesn't produce results just because that's happening. A rested brain can do awesome shit. The trick is making sure that it gets rest, and you don't just assume that more thinking time will produce awesome results. It won't.
Some days my brain is done after 7 hours and I take off, though I have a bad habit of hanging around longer.
But some days my brain is still doing great after 10 or even 12, and I don't mind staying in it and getting extra stuff done.
4) (2a) I kick off at quitting time even if I'm mid-flow. I just lay down some quick notes about where I'm at and what needs to happen next. I dump what it's in my head, and then walk away with a clear head, leaving that for tomorrow. Tomorrow 3 minutes of skimming and I'm not doing that shit, because somehow in the last 12 hrs my brain realized that's not what I should be doing, and I now know what I really should be doing. I swear, 2/3 of the time that I brain-dump and leave, I come back the next day knowing that that's not going to be productive.
I've dropped some 10s, and even a few 12s, and none of them were as productive as my regular 7s are.
Obviously 996 is really broken, and everyone has a different threshold, but I'm not sure the strict 9-5 mentality is particularly healthy either.
You spend a huge portion of your life working, do you really want to spend the last quarter of every day watching the clock. I don't mind finding enough meaning that I sometimes go over. I just try to make sure that my co-workers don't feel pressured to do the same.
It is even worse: The productivity you get this way is wayyyy lower than with a 40h week. I can only think it is some idea that the underclass has to be tortured and a tiny number of those that take the torture without complaining and ask for more can be lifted up.
Productivity per hour goes down, and you eventually burn out or piss off employees entirely until they just quit, but at least for that stretch productivity will be way up.
That's one of the reason you need labour laws and/or unions. Employees compete with each other, so they'll feel pressured to outwork the other, and it's profitable for management to encourage this, meaning you'll get eventually reach a "996" workplace culture.
The big issue I see is 996 is crazy enough that you don't actually have a personal life. For 6 days of the week you literally only have 4 hours to get home, shop, eat, etc. You can't join a sports team, you can't go on a date, you basically have 1 day a week to build a life. Maybe you can endure it for your 20s, but what do you do when you're done?
Our source described a culture of suspicion and hostility that emerged under the new leadership. There was recently an all-hands meeting at which employees were encouraged to ask frank questions about the company's new direction. Those who spoke up were summarily fired last week, the individual said, at the recommendation of an HR consultant.
So they had a company meeting, found the few individuals who actually cared about the company and were proactive about making it better, and fired them.
I mean we don't know anything outside the news article, and maybe "spoke up" was a synonymy for "toxic employees who were destroying office morale" but phrasing as-is reads pretty bad.
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
I'm guessing he wanted to add extra justification for the conviction. Just because the legislature writes the law doesn't mean the law is constitutional. If the judge or an appeals court finds it unconstitutional the defendant will get off.
I can see a couple good reasons why the deadness of the battery shouldn't matter.
a) It could have died earlier in the drive, heck the battery could have been completely toast and the phone only worked while the power cable was in (a cable he yanked when he got stopped) or he swapped the working phone for a dead phone.
b) Listening to music isn't distracted driving, that tells me that the problem is the headphones themselves. Certainly with wired earbuds the wire itself inhibits your ability to look around and potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
So basically they're indentured servants, because five years of cyber security experience on top of what they already knew would make them bank on the open market.
That's how you get your slaves. Throw the book at young kids and make them work cheap for you for a decade or more.
That's 65k USD, which actually isn't bad considering that they probably don't have degrees and have criminal records. And they don't seem to be bound to this company, it's just one of the few companies that will hire them in a technical role given that they don't have degrees and have criminal records.
And lets face it "teenaged crackers" aren't the ones finding zero-day exploits. These were kids deploying pre-built rootkits or hacking tools, or using social engineering attacks. They need some basic technical competency, but their biggest asset is largely just a bunch of specialized knowledge.
I think my biggest issue with this is: a) A lot of the kids didn't seem to realize they were doing something especially wrong, even though if they were enabling things like identity left that can seriously ruin people's lives. It's a hard question figuring out the appropriate punishment for stuff like that.
b) Some of them do seem pretty bright, professional experience is good and you can get a pretty good career going straight into the industry. But I suspect a lot would really benefit from a post-secondary education.
I mean -- even if I happily accept that a poor diet is the leading cause of premature death? They claim that low consumption of fruits is one of the major problems. One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices, because they contain so much natural sugar and calories.
Fruit juice is basically just flavoured sugar water, it's better than pop, but not much.
The fruits themselves also have a lot of fibre and other pulpy bits that don't really juice that well. This is what makes a fruit so much more satiating than a fruit juice.
I'm sure the fruits themselves are better for you than drinking fruit juice... but even so? What part of a balanced diet is so contingent on eating fruit? It seems to me you could get most of the same vitamin and mineral benefits from a good selection of vegetables - not to mention all the "vitamin fortified" products out there like our cereals.
The benefit of all those vitamins is probably overblown, we generally get all the vitamins we need from our diet.
The advantage of fruits is they're tastier than vegetables but still pretty healthy. Is it healthier to snack on a carrot instead of an orange? Probably. But you might actually snack on an orange. If you plan to only snack on raw carrotes you're more likely to grab a chocolate bar.
For me, living a life of fruits and veggies is suffering. Eating tasty, satisfying meats is fulfilling. I'm healthy not sickly based on my regular physicals and blood tests. So what works for me is what I'm doing.
Well then this doesn't concern you. The major symptom of a bad diet is obesity, if you're not suffering that effect then you're current diet is probably fine.
But the recommendations didn't say anything about becoming a vegetarian. The only thing you apparently have a problem with is the fruits, but are oranges, mangoes, and strawberries really the definition of suffering?
Also this doesnt prevent death, the cause just moves to another category when a person dies. Everyone dies after all.
And in my view the people that live longer don't necessarily live happier lives overall. I'd rather eat what works for me and live however long I live.
You're focusing on the wrong thing.
It's not about the choice between a long life and a short life.
It's about the choice between a healthy life and a sickly life.
In many other countries, the source of high consumption of sodium is processed foods.
Consumption of large percentages of diet from processed foods is understood to reduce lifespan.
I don't know why it isn't more obvious to people that sodium is a confounding variable, not a causal one.
I'm not a doctor or nutritionist, but I think the problem with sodium is it causes health issues for people who are already in poor health.
For instance, one of the things sodium does is raise your blood pressure, and too high a blood pressure damages your organs over time. And that sodium also needs to be filtered out by your kidneys, which places extra strain on them and can cause additional kidney damage.
So, if you have low blood pressure and healthy kidneys, like many Japanese do, then sodium probably isn't a problem. But if you have bad kidneys and high blood pressure, like many westerners do, than excess sodium can make your current health issues a lot worse.
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.
Which is an misunderstanding of stupidly interpreted evidence.
There's no evidence of the files being transferred off the DNC servers at 22mb/s, there's evidence of the files being written at 22mb/s on July 5th.
You're right because its deceit, which is 10x worse than just a normal lie. Also shows your hand and character. You're not in this for truth. You just hate Trump so much you don't care what it takes to get him out of office and into prison. Even if he is 100% innocent of any crime.
Uhhhh.
You do realize that by deliberately conflating an easily made factual error with deceit you are in fact... committing deceit?
The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.
If all the offers of help were turned down then how did George Papadopoulos know that Russia had stolen DNC emails before Wikileaks had dumped them?
If everyone from Trump's campaign turned away Russian offers of help then how do you describe Carter Pager running around Russia trying to make contacts?
And if no one from Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian government then why was his campaign chair sending internal polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs with connections to Russian intelligence?
Barr's summary isn't even consistent with the publicly known aspects of Mueller's investigation. I don't think Barr's giving a very reliable summary.
Russia also started trying to hack Clinton's office the same day Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.
Because it neeeever would have occurred to a foreign intelligence agency to hack an unsecured treasure trove of classified information until Trump made a joke about it on TV.
It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks.
As much as a photo of Obama eating shawarma is evidence that he really was a Muslim born in Kenya, sure.
I said evidence, not proof.
We already have Papadopolous, a Trump campaign member, knowing that Russia had stolen DNC emails before wikileaks had ever released them.
That's proof that Trump's campaign knew that Russia was stealing emails from their opponents.
Now Trump is talking about Russia attacking a specific target the same day that Russia attacks that target.
Yes, unlike Birtherism that does count as actual evidence that Trump had inside knowledge that a hack was going to happen.
The Washington Free Beacon wasn't affiliated with a specific campaign but they were "anti-Trump", and they were paying for opposition research on Trump.
Steele didn't show up until after the DNC started paying the bills. But he was hired because the research initially funded by the Beacon, and later by the DNC, picked up evidence of Trump/Russia connections.
Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms
Really? Not even when Comey re-opened the email investigation days before the election?
Any why create a fake dossier when there were so many legitimate Trump controversies to dig into? Instead of a story line that keeps supplying dirt and hurting Trump (ie, TrumpU) you end up with a story line that fizzles out with no evidence and discredits all your legitimate dirt.
, especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...
Uhhh, I won't accuse you of lying... but surely you now remember that Carter Page was first subject to a FISA warrant in 2014. He was a target again in 2016 because he kept having contacts with Russian Intelligence recruiters.
The truly amusing thing about Cohen is that it's pretty clear that either he's a pathological liar or Adam Schiff performed some serious amounts of witness tampering prior to his second appearance before Congress.
He's a slimebag, he was a slimebag before he started working for Trump, he was a slimebag when he worked for Trump, and he remains a slimebag after flipping on Trump.
It's hard not to cheer for someone when they're taking effective shots at your enemies, that's pretty much the basis of Trump's appeal, but he hasn't suddenly become a virtuous and honest man.
Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.
Used for what? To make news? Because the story would read like this:
"Someone you never heard of has just given us a file containing a bunch of innuendo and amazing claims with no supporting facts. It's about one of the Presidential candidates. That candidate has denied the allegations in the file."
Soo.... you claim that the dossier, that has generated massive news coverage, wasn't leaked because the press would find it uninteresting???
To which I repeat the question... why write a fake dossier to win an election if you're not going to leak it?
Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.
Funny how you guys make up stories and decide to believe they're true, and then when they are proven false, you just make up new stories. The real world and what really occurs never seem to matter.
In other words your "fake dossier" narrative is so weak you didn't even bothering to make a story.
Now here's my story. The dossier was a legitimate and entirely normal attempt at opposition research, performed by a former intelligence official. The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump, and to find provable dirt they could use against him.
The dossier didn't have any provable dirt, at least not anything juicer than was already publicly known about Trump. But it was very unusual in that it had evidence (but not proof) that he was compromised and coordinating with the Russian government. Republicans and Democrats both found this concerning enough that they forwarded it to the FBI, who was already investigating the Trump campaign for collusion.
No one, Republican, Democrat, or FBI, leaked it to the press during the campaign because that wasn't its purpose, and since it could be traced back to the campaign who paid for it and could backfire.
So that's my story, one that makes sense and is consistent with the evidence.
How this got turned into a massive conspiracy and fantasy about Trump conspiring with Putin says a lot about the effectiveness of brainwashing by propaganda. Unplug yourself.
Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.
It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks. Maybe he was giving them a poke to get started, maybe he knew they were starting and was thinking about it so much that it came out in a joke.
Yeah Mueller didn't find evidence of collusion. But all you need is a couple senior people using WhatsApp who know how to delete chat history and you wouldn't have any evidence.
The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?
Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.
Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
Cohen also plead guilty to tax evasion charges. And a plea bargain is technically a conviction. Yes they didn't have to prove it in court, the evidence was so overwhelming that Cohen would have been a fool to go to trial.
And the tax charges were ALSO brought by the SDNY.
See the AC was trying to claim "Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with the campaign", which people called BS because Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance violation.
So you tried moving the goal posts by claiming that this is a discussion of the Mueller investigation. But then the AC's statement makes no sense because they're referring to tax crimes which happened the SDNY. The only charges that Cohen was convicted from Mueller's office was lying to congress... about the campaign.
This is just some rhetorical game to make people think that when they hear of "Cohen's crimes" they somehow think it has nothing to do with the campaign. Unfortunately for you the meaningless distinctions that would usually help to confuse people don't actually apply here.
Though to my knowledge you are correct that Manafort's convictions were unrelated to Trump's campaign.
Wow! That's the exact opposite of what you said! There was no underlying crime of "collusion" or "conspiracy", AND there was no evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct any investigation even if there had been one.
Actually, except for the Manafort bit, the AC was fairly on-base your counter is either irrelevant or overblown.
The AC didn't claim collusion, he claimed that Trump encouraged Russian attacks on TV, which is true.
As for the obstruction charge, there's definitely evidence. What Mueller basically said is that he didn't find evidence of collusion in the campaign, and if you don't have proof of the crime that was being investigated it's harder to prove that efforts to kill that investigation were obstruction of justice.
But he explicitly says that it doesn't exonerate Trump, and the AG could decide otherwise (though he naturally won't of course).
And while we're at it, since the Trumpists are so fond of playing this game, lets point out another few things.
1) Mueller established that Manafort lied after agreeing to cooperate, but didn't seem to try for additional info. Manafort had some very fishy ties to Russian oligarchs connected to Putin and very easily could have had more info. 2) Mueller doesn't seem to have tried questioning Trump Jr and Kushner about the Trump tower meeting. 3) Despite the fact there's judicial precedent to subpoena a sitting President for questioning Mueller never tried. Instead he negotiated a list of questions and let Trump and his lawyers craft answers. 4) Papadopoulos was bragging about the emails that Russia stole to the Greek Foreign Minister, do you really think he didn't blab about it to other members of the campaign? Who did he tell? How did they use that information? 5) You had a Republican investigator, reporting to a Republican supervisor, reporting to a Republican AG, investigating a Republican President. I'm not saying that Mueller was trying to cover anything up, but he certainly seems to have treated Trump with kid gloves.
Politicians lie during campaigns all the time. Why is this case special? If that's the problem, fix the system, penalties for misrepresentation of facts. Voting again is not addressing the core problem.
Democracies also vote on things all the time as well.
And if you lose that as well you can keep proposing new ones for years after.
Do you really think Scottish separatists think they can never have another referendum? Hell, if Brexit happens they'll start scheduling it the next week.
I don't see why a "yes, separate" vote is the only one you're not allowed a second crack at.
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
You're not buying a decision as much as the opportunity to make your case to the people who make decisions. There is a distinction.
But it also misses the point. This is completely normal politician behaviour. Even Obama ended up appointing a bunch of major donors as ambassadors since... well that's just how the system works.
Honestly, this is why so much of the criticism against Clinton gets tagged as sexist.
50 male politicians do it "oh well, that sucks but that politics".
Clinton does it "OMG!!! This is bribery!!! Throw her in jail!!!"
It can't be bribery only when Clinton does it. And if you say it's bribes for everyone then Clinton can't be the only one you criticize for accepting bribes.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just some kind of grandstanding. Even if Zuckerburg didn't have the controlling shares to stop this I think other key share holders would stop him from being ousted. Despite all the main stream media hate I think Zuckerburg has handled the "scandals" pretty well and most shareholders know this.
Grandstanding with a purpose though.
Right now he's chairman & CEO, if other share-holders vote overwhelmingly for him to resign as chairman he'll probably give up one of his titles or at least find some individual they support to give a senior title.
Even if other share-holders vote as a majority for him to stay, but there's still a strong minority opposed, then he'll probably feel pressured to change things to bring that minority back onside.
If the vote sputters out, well then his leadership is strengthened and he'll be able to act with a bit less opposition.
Productivity is already "per hour". Output per hour, to be precise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No. Output might go up, but it'll likely do so less than proportionally to the hours worked.
You're picking straws over terminology.
Productivity per hour will go down.
But productivity per employee will go up.
And it might even go down if people are so tired they're making errors that cost time to fix.
If you're making 1.5 times as much stuff but taking twice the time then productivity (at least if you use the word to mean what it actually does) falls by 25%. This has been known since forever.
Yes, that's a factor as well. It's like the Laffer curve, too little it's efficient but you get nothing, too much and you get diminishing returns.
There's no reason to think 40 hours is the magic number, it's going to vary by individuals and it's going to vary by jobs.
In some cases there's people who can see a substantial productivity increase going from 70 to 80 hour work weeks. On other cases someone might be outrageously productive in only 5 hours a week, but beyond that they're just not that useful.
I work less now than I ever have, and I'm vastly more productive than I've ever been.
This is for a couple of reasons.
1) I can take public transportation, and triage emails before I get in in the morning, and take care of a few things after I leave so there's less built up in the morning. I show up with a list of what needs to be done, and no need to waste 20 minutes filtering.
You're still working, you just found a way to do some work during your commute.
2) My shit is organized. I put a lot of time and effort into that, and I offload a lot of mental energy by not having to remember a lot of things. That means I've got a lot more mental energy to spend on what I really need to be thinking about.
That's working more effectively, but it doesn't mean that you're more productive by working less.
3) When I'm not productive I leave. Ass in the seat doesn't produce results just because that's happening. A rested brain can do awesome shit. The trick is making sure that it gets rest, and you don't just assume that more thinking time will produce awesome results. It won't.
Some days my brain is done after 7 hours and I take off, though I have a bad habit of hanging around longer.
But some days my brain is still doing great after 10 or even 12, and I don't mind staying in it and getting extra stuff done.
4) (2a) I kick off at quitting time even if I'm mid-flow. I just lay down some quick notes about where I'm at and what needs to happen next. I dump what it's in my head, and then walk away with a clear head, leaving that for tomorrow. Tomorrow 3 minutes of skimming and I'm not doing that shit, because somehow in the last 12 hrs my brain realized that's not what I should be doing, and I now know what I really should be doing. I swear, 2/3 of the time that I brain-dump and leave, I come back the next day knowing that that's not going to be productive.
I've dropped some 10s, and even a few 12s, and none of them were as productive as my regular 7s are.
Obviously 996 is really broken, and everyone has a different threshold, but I'm not sure the strict 9-5 mentality is particularly healthy either.
You spend a huge portion of your life working, do you really want to spend the last quarter of every day watching the clock. I don't mind finding enough meaning that I sometimes go over. I just try to make sure that my co-workers don't feel pressured to do the same.
It is even worse: The productivity you get this way is wayyyy lower than with a 40h week. I can only think it is some idea that the underclass has to be tortured and a tiny number of those that take the torture without complaining and ask for more can be lifted up.
Productivity per hour goes down, and you eventually burn out or piss off employees entirely until they just quit, but at least for that stretch productivity will be way up.
That's one of the reason you need labour laws and/or unions. Employees compete with each other, so they'll feel pressured to outwork the other, and it's profitable for management to encourage this, meaning you'll get eventually reach a "996" workplace culture.
The big issue I see is 996 is crazy enough that you don't actually have a personal life. For 6 days of the week you literally only have 4 hours to get home, shop, eat, etc. You can't join a sports team, you can't go on a date, you basically have 1 day a week to build a life. Maybe you can endure it for your 20s, but what do you do when you're done?
Our source described a culture of suspicion and hostility that emerged under the new leadership. There was recently an all-hands meeting at which employees were encouraged to ask frank questions about the company's new direction. Those who spoke up were summarily fired last week, the individual said, at the recommendation of an HR consultant.
So they had a company meeting, found the few individuals who actually cared about the company and were proactive about making it better, and fired them.
I mean we don't know anything outside the news article, and maybe "spoke up" was a synonymy for "toxic employees who were destroying office morale" but phrasing as-is reads pretty bad.
No, section 7 of the British Columbia Motorvehicle Act prohibits the use of wearing both headphones. They can only be worn in one ear, and only used for hands-free communications.
I'm not sure why the judge went through the legal gymnastics either.
I'm guessing he wanted to add extra justification for the conviction. Just because the legislature writes the law doesn't mean the law is constitutional. If the judge or an appeals court finds it unconstitutional the defendant will get off.
I can see a couple good reasons why the deadness of the battery shouldn't matter.
a) It could have died earlier in the drive, heck the battery could have been completely toast and the phone only worked while the power cable was in (a cable he yanked when he got stopped) or he swapped the working phone for a dead phone.
b) Listening to music isn't distracted driving, that tells me that the problem is the headphones themselves. Certainly with wired earbuds the wire itself inhibits your ability to look around and potentially means your phone is going to fall down and yank your head a bit.
So basically they're indentured servants, because five years of cyber security experience on top of what they already knew would make them bank on the open market.
That's how you get your slaves. Throw the book at young kids and make them work cheap for you for a decade or more.
That's 65k USD, which actually isn't bad considering that they probably don't have degrees and have criminal records. And they don't seem to be bound to this company, it's just one of the few companies that will hire them in a technical role given that they don't have degrees and have criminal records.
And lets face it "teenaged crackers" aren't the ones finding zero-day exploits. These were kids deploying pre-built rootkits or hacking tools, or using social engineering attacks. They need some basic technical competency, but their biggest asset is largely just a bunch of specialized knowledge.
I think my biggest issue with this is:
a) A lot of the kids didn't seem to realize they were doing something especially wrong, even though if they were enabling things like identity left that can seriously ruin people's lives. It's a hard question figuring out the appropriate punishment for stuff like that.
b) Some of them do seem pretty bright, professional experience is good and you can get a pretty good career going straight into the industry. But I suspect a lot would really benefit from a post-secondary education.
I mean -- even if I happily accept that a poor diet is the leading cause of premature death? They claim that low consumption of fruits is one of the major problems. One of the first things I hear from dieticians trying to solve obesity problems is to curb one's intake of fruit juices, because they contain so much natural sugar and calories.
Fruit juice is basically just flavoured sugar water, it's better than pop, but not much.
The fruits themselves also have a lot of fibre and other pulpy bits that don't really juice that well. This is what makes a fruit so much more satiating than a fruit juice.
I'm sure the fruits themselves are better for you than drinking fruit juice ... but even so? What part of a balanced diet is so contingent on eating fruit? It seems to me you could get most of the same vitamin and mineral benefits from a good selection of vegetables - not to mention all the "vitamin fortified" products out there like our cereals.
The benefit of all those vitamins is probably overblown, we generally get all the vitamins we need from our diet.
The advantage of fruits is they're tastier than vegetables but still pretty healthy. Is it healthier to snack on a carrot instead of an orange? Probably. But you might actually snack on an orange. If you plan to only snack on raw carrotes you're more likely to grab a chocolate bar.
For me, living a life of fruits and veggies is suffering. Eating tasty, satisfying meats is fulfilling. I'm healthy not sickly based on my regular physicals and blood tests. So what works for me is what I'm doing.
Well then this doesn't concern you. The major symptom of a bad diet is obesity, if you're not suffering that effect then you're current diet is probably fine.
But the recommendations didn't say anything about becoming a vegetarian. The only thing you apparently have a problem with is the fruits, but are oranges, mangoes, and strawberries really the definition of suffering?
Agreed.
Also this doesnt prevent death, the cause just moves to another category when a person dies. Everyone dies after all.
And in my view the people that live longer don't necessarily live happier lives overall. I'd rather eat what works for me and live however long I live.
You're focusing on the wrong thing.
It's not about the choice between a long life and a short life.
It's about the choice between a healthy life and a sickly life.
It's not hard to tell which life will be happier.
The longest lifespans are in Japan.
The highest sodium consumption is in Japan.
In many other countries, the source of high consumption of sodium is processed foods.
Consumption of large percentages of diet from processed foods is understood to reduce lifespan.
I don't know why it isn't more obvious to people that sodium is a confounding variable, not a causal one.
I'm not a doctor or nutritionist, but I think the problem with sodium is it causes health issues for people who are already in poor health.
For instance, one of the things sodium does is raise your blood pressure, and too high a blood pressure damages your organs over time. And that sodium also needs to be filtered out by your kidneys, which places extra strain on them and can cause additional kidney damage.
So, if you have low blood pressure and healthy kidneys, like many Japanese do, then sodium probably isn't a problem. But if you have bad kidneys and high blood pressure, like many westerners do, than excess sodium can make your current health issues a lot worse.
Your problem with physics is not my problem. Seriously.
https://consortiumnews.com/201...
*sigh*
I'm guessing this is what you mean by "physics"
July 5, 2016: In the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
It thus appears that the purported “hack” of the DNC by Guccifer 2.0 (the self-proclaimed WikiLeaks source) was not a hack by Russia or anyone else, but was rather a copy of DNC data onto an external storage device.
Which is an misunderstanding of stupidly interpreted evidence.
There's no evidence of the files being transferred off the DNC servers at 22mb/s, there's evidence of the files being written at 22mb/s on July 5th.
Which is more than a month older than the oldest email!!!!!
You're not looking at the timestamp of the hack, you're looking at the timestamp of putting the files on a USB for Wikileaks.
We know that's false as the files were copied far too fast to have been hacked remotely, it was a local copy
Seriously?
Rule #1 of having a hacking operation, do your hacking from a machine that's separate from your main network.
Now, how do you then get the stolen files from that machine to your main network?
Use a USB stick.
Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.
You're right because its deceit, which is 10x worse than just a normal lie. Also shows your hand and character. You're not in this for truth. You just hate Trump so much you don't care what it takes to get him out of office and into prison. Even if he is 100% innocent of any crime.
Uhhhh.
You do realize that by deliberately conflating an easily made factual error with deceit you are in fact... committing deceit?
The report actually goes beyond a lack of collusion. it did not find that Trump's campaign or affiliates conspired or coordinated with the Russian government "despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign." Implication is that Russia offered but was turned away.
If all the offers of help were turned down then how did George Papadopoulos know that Russia had stolen DNC emails before Wikileaks had dumped them?
If everyone from Trump's campaign turned away Russian offers of help then how do you describe Carter Pager running around Russia trying to make contacts?
And if no one from Trump's campaign coordinated with the Russian government then why was his campaign chair sending internal polling data to Ukrainian oligarchs with connections to Russian intelligence?
Barr's summary isn't even consistent with the publicly known aspects of Mueller's investigation. I don't think Barr's giving a very reliable summary.
Because it neeeever would have occurred to a foreign intelligence agency to hack an unsecured treasure trove of classified information until Trump made a joke about it on TV.
As much as a photo of Obama eating shawarma is evidence that he really was a Muslim born in Kenya, sure.
I said evidence, not proof.
We already have Papadopolous, a Trump campaign member, knowing that Russia had stolen DNC emails before wikileaks had ever released them.
That's proof that Trump's campaign knew that Russia was stealing emails from their opponents.
Now Trump is talking about Russia attacking a specific target the same day that Russia attacks that target.
Yes, unlike Birtherism that does count as actual evidence that Trump had inside knowledge that a hack was going to happen.
It's not proof, but it's sure as hell evidence.
The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump
That is a lie, and you know it. It was funded by the Clinton campaign and the DNC, and the Washington Free Beacon - a new site, NOT a campaign - hired Fusion GPS for some intel but it was not the Steele Dossier.
Quit lying.
Not remembering a secondary detail isn't a lie.
The Washington Free Beacon wasn't affiliated with a specific campaign but they were "anti-Trump", and they were paying for opposition research on Trump.
Steele didn't show up until after the DNC started paying the bills. But he was hired because the research initially funded by the Beacon, and later by the DNC, picked up evidence of Trump/Russia connections.
Maybe because right up until Election night, the Democrats were 93% certain to win the whole thing? Why use it and open up the can-of-worms
Really? Not even when Comey re-opened the email investigation days before the election?
Any why create a fake dossier when there were so many legitimate Trump controversies to dig into? Instead of a story line that keeps supplying dirt and hurting Trump (ie, TrumpU) you end up with a story line that fizzles out with no evidence and discredits all your legitimate dirt.
, especially since it did its job to get the FISA warrants to spy in the first place...
Uhhh, I won't accuse you of lying... but surely you now remember that Carter Page was first subject to a FISA warrant in 2014. He was a target again in 2016 because he kept having contacts with Russian Intelligence recruiters.
The truly amusing thing about Cohen is that it's pretty clear that either he's a pathological liar or Adam Schiff performed some serious amounts of witness tampering prior to his second appearance before Congress.
He's a slimebag, he was a slimebag before he started working for Trump, he was a slimebag when he worked for Trump, and he remains a slimebag after flipping on Trump.
It's hard not to cheer for someone when they're taking effective shots at your enemies, that's pretty much the basis of Trump's appeal, but he hasn't suddenly become a virtuous and honest man.
Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.
Used for what? To make news? Because the story would read like this:
"Someone you never heard of has just given us a file containing a bunch of innuendo and amazing claims with no supporting facts. It's about one of the Presidential candidates. That candidate has denied the allegations in the file."
Soo.... you claim that the dossier, that has generated massive news coverage, wasn't leaked because the press would find it uninteresting???
To which I repeat the question... why write a fake dossier to win an election if you're not going to leak it?
Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.
Funny how you guys make up stories and decide to believe they're true, and then when they are proven false, you just make up new stories. The real world and what really occurs never seem to matter.
In other words your "fake dossier" narrative is so weak you didn't even bothering to make a story.
Now here's my story. The dossier was a legitimate and entirely normal attempt at opposition research, performed by a former intelligence official. The campaigns who funded the research, both Republicans and Democrats, hoped to learn how to campaign against Trump, and to find provable dirt they could use against him.
The dossier didn't have any provable dirt, at least not anything juicer than was already publicly known about Trump. But it was very unusual in that it had evidence (but not proof) that he was compromised and coordinating with the Russian government. Republicans and Democrats both found this concerning enough that they forwarded it to the FBI, who was already investigating the Trump campaign for collusion.
No one, Republican, Democrat, or FBI, leaked it to the press during the campaign because that wasn't its purpose, and since it could be traced back to the campaign who paid for it and could backfire.
So that's my story, one that makes sense and is consistent with the evidence.
How this got turned into a massive conspiracy and fantasy about Trump conspiring with Putin says a lot about the effectiveness of brainwashing by propaganda. Unplug yourself.
Russia also started trying to hack Clinton's office the same day.
Yeah, it sounds like a joke, but that's a pretty big coincidence.
It's also evidence that Trump, who famously blurts out incriminating things, had some knowledge or influence over Russia's attacks. Maybe he was giving them a poke to get started, maybe he knew they were starting and was thinking about it so much that it came out in a joke.
Yeah Mueller didn't find evidence of collusion. But all you need is a couple senior people using WhatsApp who know how to delete chat history and you wouldn't have any evidence.
The Clinton campaign did the same thing. The difference is, we've had 2 years of investigation into the Trump campaign and it was found to not be collusion. Shall we now do the same with the Clinton campaign and the DNC, who financed the dossier which was written by a foreigner, with Russian influences, to damage their opponent? Or is that not collusion?
Then why didn't they leak that dossier before the election? You know, when it would have actually been useful.
Funny how none of the Trumpists can never answer that iceberg sized plot hole.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was convicted of making an excessive contribution to the Trump campaign, "for the principle purpose of influencing the election," at the request of Individual 1.
No, Cohen ADMITTED to this, he was not tried in court. He entered into a Plea bargain deal, he wasn't convicted in court so nobody had to prove he violated campaign finance law. I know there is little practical difference for Cohen, but there IS a difference here.
Further, the "Russian Collusion" angel has nothing at all to do with Cohen and the campaign finance charges taken up by the Southern District of NY.
Cohen also plead guilty to tax evasion charges. And a plea bargain is technically a conviction. Yes they didn't have to prove it in court, the evidence was so overwhelming that Cohen would have been a fool to go to trial.
And the tax charges were ALSO brought by the SDNY.
See the AC was trying to claim "Cohen's crimes had nothing to do with the campaign", which people called BS because Cohen was convicted of a campaign finance violation.
So you tried moving the goal posts by claiming that this is a discussion of the Mueller investigation. But then the AC's statement makes no sense because they're referring to tax crimes which happened the SDNY. The only charges that Cohen was convicted from Mueller's office was lying to congress... about the campaign.
This is just some rhetorical game to make people think that when they hear of "Cohen's crimes" they somehow think it has nothing to do with the campaign. Unfortunately for you the meaningless distinctions that would usually help to confuse people don't actually apply here.
Actually, Manafort and Cohen both been convicted of cheating on their taxes in cases unconnected to Trump and his campaign.
Cohen was ALSO convicted of campaign finance violations. And lying to congress (about the campaign).
Though to my knowledge you are correct that Manafort's convictions were unrelated to Trump's campaign.
Wow! That's the exact opposite of what you said! There was no underlying crime of "collusion" or "conspiracy", AND there was no evidence that Trump attempted to obstruct any investigation even if there had been one.
Actually, except for the Manafort bit, the AC was fairly on-base your counter is either irrelevant or overblown.
The AC didn't claim collusion, he claimed that Trump encouraged Russian attacks on TV, which is true.
As for the obstruction charge, there's definitely evidence. What Mueller basically said is that he didn't find evidence of collusion in the campaign, and if you don't have proof of the crime that was being investigated it's harder to prove that efforts to kill that investigation were obstruction of justice.
But he explicitly says that it doesn't exonerate Trump, and the AG could decide otherwise (though he naturally won't of course).
And while we're at it, since the Trumpists are so fond of playing this game, lets point out another few things.
1) Mueller established that Manafort lied after agreeing to cooperate, but didn't seem to try for additional info. Manafort had some very fishy ties to Russian oligarchs connected to Putin and very easily could have had more info.
2) Mueller doesn't seem to have tried questioning Trump Jr and Kushner about the Trump tower meeting.
3) Despite the fact there's judicial precedent to subpoena a sitting President for questioning Mueller never tried. Instead he negotiated a list of questions and let Trump and his lawyers craft answers.
4) Papadopoulos was bragging about the emails that Russia stole to the Greek Foreign Minister, do you really think he didn't blab about it to other members of the campaign? Who did he tell? How did they use that information?
5) You had a Republican investigator, reporting to a Republican supervisor, reporting to a Republican AG, investigating a Republican President. I'm not saying that Mueller was trying to cover anything up, but he certainly seems to have treated Trump with kid gloves.
Politicians lie during campaigns all the time. Why is this case special? If that's the problem, fix the system, penalties for misrepresentation of facts. Voting again is not addressing the core problem.
Democracies also vote on things all the time as well.
Select the wrong party, change it next election.
Lose a referendum on separating?
Then hold another one.
And if you lose that as well you can keep proposing new ones for years after.
Do you really think Scottish separatists think they can never have another referendum? Hell, if Brexit happens they'll start scheduling it the next week.
I don't see why a "yes, separate" vote is the only one you're not allowed a second crack at.
> It's not a bribe as much as a "I'll do something nice for me and I'll hear you out... but I won't actually do something I think is wrong".
Wow, that's really neat. You can completely ignore bribery laws by declaring that you intended to favor those donors regardless of their donations? That's incredibly convenient!
You're not buying a decision as much as the opportunity to make your case to the people who make decisions. There is a distinction.
But it also misses the point. This is completely normal politician behaviour. Even Obama ended up appointing a bunch of major donors as ambassadors since... well that's just how the system works.
Honestly, this is why so much of the criticism against Clinton gets tagged as sexist.
50 male politicians do it "oh well, that sucks but that politics".
Clinton does it "OMG!!! This is bribery!!! Throw her in jail!!!"
It can't be bribery only when Clinton does it. And if you say it's bribes for everyone then Clinton can't be the only one you criticize for accepting bribes.