Nope, these alerts over-ride the sound settings, and use the loudest most jarring alert sound they could find. You have to go into the messaging settings for your device and turn off the alerts. Just turning off the sound doesn't work.
The one that prompted me to turn the alerts off for was the father supposedly kidnapping his children. What really happened was the father was out doing something fun with the kids, as the mother was filing for divorce and a restraining order. Once she got the order she immediately filed a child abduction report with the police and the Alert was sent out. The father was clueless as to what she was doing, (well he expected divorce papers soon, but not the rest). That was the final straw, if the system is going to be abused for hostile divorces then it is worthless.
You can go into your phone settings and turn off those alerts. I did after a series of the exact same types of false or irrelevant alerts. I have happily slept through the last couple alerts. Many I know have silenced the alerts as well thanks to such abuses of the system.
Being interpreted as it is written does not preclude technological advances. Nor does it preclude updating the document via the established method of amendments. It is very in touch with today, the areas where it is not have been amended (end slavery, granting voting rights to women etc.) In areas where advancing tech does not matter, sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, firearm advances, advances in methods of spreading speech etc... it has not needed change and thus has not been amended.
Nice stereotyping of all Americans. Many in fact do like the Bill of Rights as written, all of it. But continue to just assume that everybody only wants to keep parts of it. I voted for Trump, but he's flat wrong on how to treat burning the Flag. That is a protected form of speech. And it should be protected. I like the freedom of speech, I like the freedom to peaceably assemble (riots and blocking freeways is not peaceable) I like the freedom of religion, that there is no state endorsed church. I like the right to keep and bear arms and the rest of them. I wish the 10th was still respected as it should be.
I haven't seen any claim or movement by Trump towards a single party state. Or any intent by him to seize permanent control. Nor is there any support by either side or in either house of Congress for such.
I could go on, but basically you are using your imagination and frustration at his victory to impose visions of Hitler over him. He is not Hitler, not even close. He doesn't have the power of personality or single-mindedness of conviction to be a Hitler. But even if he were the structure of our government is not one that would have allowed Hitler to seize supreme control as he was able to under the very flawed structure of the Weimar Republic. And it will not allow him to seize greater power, President Obama was continually blocked in his efforts to exceed his constitutional powers.
Further the majority of his support was not actually in support of him, but outright opposition to the assumption that Hillary deserved to be crowned, that it was her turn simply because she was Hillary. We saw how the Democratic primaries had been blatantly rigged to crown her.
So that isn't Trump to a T. He's a successful Businessman who turned a few million from his father into Billions who now wants to try his hand at politics. And he wasn't part of the political establishment. So we put up with his many flaws and gladly chose him over the Harpy knowing that Congress and the Courts will keep him in check.
Would it have been closer, or would it have given him a greater lead, costing him some electors in some states but granting him electors in CA and NY from those congressional districts outside the big cities. The "By County" map is very, very red. But thanks to WTA, NY an CA were solid blue blocks of electors Hillary didn't even need to campaign for. Of course many of the solid red states would have sent her electors (TX, PA and the like) but based on the by county map I wonder if he wouldn't have won an even greater landslide in the EC.
Actually Chobham armor did/does need to be stolen as it is (as of last time I looked) classified in the exact composition and manufacture processes.
The example I gave of the stuck tank had two shots with Sabot penetrators bounce off the front glacis with just grooves in the armor. The third shot was a side shot right into the ammo compartment, and the blowout panels worked as designed, unless the loader had just happened to have the ammo door open at that moment the crew would have survived, while the Iraqi crews would die from such a hit (actually they died in just about any hit).
As to the use of machine guns. First any tank is vulnerable to infantry that can hit it from the sides in reduced mobility and visibility conditions found in urban warfare. Thus doctrine is for Tanks to be supported by Infantry and vise versa. Either alone is at risk from the other. In pure Tank on Tank you don't want infantry around as their softer vehicles are just more targets. But in a more complex battlefield they support and defend each other.
Second the way that worked was by hitting externally stored fuel in the turret bustle rack. That burning fuel then dripped into the engine compartments destroying the engines. Carrying fuel in that manner was not doctrinal and that practice was stopped. And that practice was actually copied from the externally mounted fuel tanks the Russians have long used on their tanks.
You say the M1 is not that good, but it's combat record says otherwise. Of modern Tank designs, only the Merkva has a more established combat record. And it uses the same (or very similar) composite armor.
One edit: I mixed up my Russian tanks, the T-90 was what I meant not T-94, the T-95 ended up being cancelled. Not sure if or what a more recent model is called.
To be fair the T-72 was obsolete in 1990. And even the T-94 lacked an armor comparable to the Chobham Composite armor the West uses. Don't know if they finally managed to steal the tech for their current tanks, which supposedly have a greater range than the Abrams, but range means nothing if your shots simply bounce off the target.
That and the fact that even when they managed to ding a US tank, it just dinged it while the US Tank guns, that could be shot while on the move and from nearly three times the range, even through sand berms, sent the Sov design tank turrets spinning into the air.
Hell we even tried to destroy in place a stuck in the sand M1 and were unable to do so. The first two shots just grooved the front armor, a third from the side, went into the ammo compartment, the blow out panels worked as designed and odds are the hit would have been survivable by the crew (though they would have had burn injuries). Before they could try to shoot again a couple more recovery vehicles showed up and they were able to pull it free and it was towed back and sent to a lab to be examined, but if needed a new turret could have been swapped in and the vehicle sent back into combat within a couple days.
As per USC title 18 Section 37 Para 793(f), mishandling of classified information is a felony offense. It has no intent requirement. Fail to handle classified information correctly and you are guilty, putting classified information into unclassified emails is mishandling at a minimum. One or two minor incidents can usually be waived. A systematic intentional disregard for the proper handling of classified information cannot. She needs to face charges. She could even be charged with intentional release of classified information. She intended to operate outside the established system, laws and regulations pertaining to classified information. But even if we let that slide her mishandling was still extensive and criminal.
It is not nonsense, it's a serious felony and needs to be prosecuted. If she can beat the charges or work out a plea deal that's fine, but to let her just skate establishes that there are two tiers to our justice system, the tier most people are subject to. And second tier for the privileged elite.
No, I'm talking about actual Chemical munitions found. Not bottles of bleach but actual weaponized chlorine gas and mustard gas in artillery rounds. Chemical precursers are not WMD. Chemical agents in live warheads are.
The Iraq Survey Group found and documented caches of these actual WMD being all over the country, just no big singular stockpile that made for a good photo-op for the press.
The real fact is everybody right and left, knew that he had a program, but that he also had months to dismantle and hide it in the build-up to the invasion.
We found WMD's all over the place. We did not find an active production program, the mobile production labs or anything nuclear (yellowcake). But we found tons of Chemical weapons all across the country. To state that we did not find any WMD's is a total lie.
It may not be popular but people know it. We've got over three decades of using those commands and that interface. If all cmd commands work, great. If not I foresee many complaints.
"There is no nuclear power plant in existence that charges its customers the full cost of mining, refining, construction, security, maintenance, disaster preparedness and waste disposal."
You keep stating this, citation needed. Yes they are very expensive to build, but produce for decades with very little actual fuel (as opposed to the constant supply of coal or NG needed for fossil fuel plants). And dismantling afterwards adds to the total cost. But if we can reduce the kneejerk reactions and opposition and cut the needless delays that often add years and multiply the total cost of construction the initial cost can be brought down. You say no plant charges it's customers in full yet most plants (at least in the west) are owned by power companies, how are those companies still operating and wanting to continue operating such plants.
We are not and have never been a direct democracy. A direct democracy will collapse and fail within a few years. The whims of the people are too capricious. Our founding fathers set us up as a Representative Republic for that very reason. And we are still a Representative Republic..
Actually it seems to be working just fine and as designed. The candidate who won the most states won, exactly as designed. It was not meant to be a democratic process but a representative republic process. There is no need to change it. It was never supposed to be a nationwide popular vote. A few Hyperdense cities should not control the politics of this still mostly rural and suburban nation.
It's an issue because CA has blocked up-river reservoir projects that would let the up-river states retain more of their share of the water for their use as guaranteed by the compact. But if CA left the Union, we could reduce the outflow at lake Powell and again at lake Meade and severely curtail the flow of water to CA. At that point the water could go to Nevada or AZ for use, and CO could then go ahead with their reservoirs and thus use more of the water which is mostly from CO UT and WY Mountains. Also AZ could grow more produce with more of the water thus replacing what CA has been growing.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope, these alerts over-ride the sound settings, and use the loudest most jarring alert sound they could find. You have to go into the messaging settings for your device and turn off the alerts. Just turning off the sound doesn't work.
The one that prompted me to turn the alerts off for was the father supposedly kidnapping his children. What really happened was the father was out doing something fun with the kids, as the mother was filing for divorce and a restraining order. Once she got the order she immediately filed a child abduction report with the police and the Alert was sent out. The father was clueless as to what she was doing, (well he expected divorce papers soon, but not the rest). That was the final straw, if the system is going to be abused for hostile divorces then it is worthless.
You can go into your phone settings and turn off those alerts. I did after a series of the exact same types of false or irrelevant alerts. I have happily slept through the last couple alerts. Many I know have silenced the alerts as well thanks to such abuses of the system.
Being interpreted as it is written does not preclude technological advances. Nor does it preclude updating the document via the established method of amendments. It is very in touch with today, the areas where it is not have been amended (end slavery, granting voting rights to women etc.) In areas where advancing tech does not matter, sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, firearm advances, advances in methods of spreading speech etc... it has not needed change and thus has not been amended.
Nice stereotyping of all Americans. Many in fact do like the Bill of Rights as written, all of it. But continue to just assume that everybody only wants to keep parts of it. I voted for Trump, but he's flat wrong on how to treat burning the Flag. That is a protected form of speech. And it should be protected. I like the freedom of speech, I like the freedom to peaceably assemble (riots and blocking freeways is not peaceable) I like the freedom of religion, that there is no state endorsed church. I like the right to keep and bear arms and the rest of them. I wish the 10th was still respected as it should be.
I haven't seen any claim or movement by Trump towards a single party state. Or any intent by him to seize permanent control. Nor is there any support by either side or in either house of Congress for such.
I could go on, but basically you are using your imagination and frustration at his victory to impose visions of Hitler over him. He is not Hitler, not even close. He doesn't have the power of personality or single-mindedness of conviction to be a Hitler. But even if he were the structure of our government is not one that would have allowed Hitler to seize supreme control as he was able to under the very flawed structure of the Weimar Republic. And it will not allow him to seize greater power, President Obama was continually blocked in his efforts to exceed his constitutional powers.
Further the majority of his support was not actually in support of him, but outright opposition to the assumption that Hillary deserved to be crowned, that it was her turn simply because she was Hillary. We saw how the Democratic primaries had been blatantly rigged to crown her.
So that isn't Trump to a T. He's a successful Businessman who turned a few million from his father into Billions who now wants to try his hand at politics. And he wasn't part of the political establishment. So we put up with his many flaws and gladly chose him over the Harpy knowing that Congress and the Courts will keep him in check.
Would it have been closer, or would it have given him a greater lead, costing him some electors in some states but granting him electors in CA and NY from those congressional districts outside the big cities. The "By County" map is very, very red. But thanks to WTA, NY an CA were solid blue blocks of electors Hillary didn't even need to campaign for. Of course many of the solid red states would have sent her electors (TX, PA and the like) but based on the by county map I wonder if he wouldn't have won an even greater landslide in the EC.
Actually Chobham armor did/does need to be stolen as it is (as of last time I looked) classified in the exact composition and manufacture processes.
The example I gave of the stuck tank had two shots with Sabot penetrators bounce off the front glacis with just grooves in the armor. The third shot was a side shot right into the ammo compartment, and the blowout panels worked as designed, unless the loader had just happened to have the ammo door open at that moment the crew would have survived, while the Iraqi crews would die from such a hit (actually they died in just about any hit).
As to the use of machine guns. First any tank is vulnerable to infantry that can hit it from the sides in reduced mobility and visibility conditions found in urban warfare. Thus doctrine is for Tanks to be supported by Infantry and vise versa. Either alone is at risk from the other. In pure Tank on Tank you don't want infantry around as their softer vehicles are just more targets. But in a more complex battlefield they support and defend each other.
Second the way that worked was by hitting externally stored fuel in the turret bustle rack. That burning fuel then dripped into the engine compartments destroying the engines. Carrying fuel in that manner was not doctrinal and that practice was stopped. And that practice was actually copied from the externally mounted fuel tanks the Russians have long used on their tanks.
You say the M1 is not that good, but it's combat record says otherwise. Of modern Tank designs, only the Merkva has a more established combat record. And it uses the same (or very similar) composite armor.
One edit: I mixed up my Russian tanks, the T-90 was what I meant not T-94, the T-95 ended up being cancelled. Not sure if or what a more recent model is called.
To be fair the T-72 was obsolete in 1990. And even the T-94 lacked an armor comparable to the Chobham Composite armor the West uses. Don't know if they finally managed to steal the tech for their current tanks, which supposedly have a greater range than the Abrams, but range means nothing if your shots simply bounce off the target.
That and the fact that even when they managed to ding a US tank, it just dinged it while the US Tank guns, that could be shot while on the move and from nearly three times the range, even through sand berms, sent the Sov design tank turrets spinning into the air.
Hell we even tried to destroy in place a stuck in the sand M1 and were unable to do so. The first two shots just grooved the front armor, a third from the side, went into the ammo compartment, the blow out panels worked as designed and odds are the hit would have been survivable by the crew (though they would have had burn injuries). Before they could try to shoot again a couple more recovery vehicles showed up and they were able to pull it free and it was towed back and sent to a lab to be examined, but if needed a new turret could have been swapped in and the vehicle sent back into combat within a couple days.
As per USC title 18 Section 37 Para 793(f), mishandling of classified information is a felony offense. It has no intent requirement. Fail to handle classified information correctly and you are guilty, putting classified information into unclassified emails is mishandling at a minimum. One or two minor incidents can usually be waived. A systematic intentional disregard for the proper handling of classified information cannot. She needs to face charges. She could even be charged with intentional release of classified information. She intended to operate outside the established system, laws and regulations pertaining to classified information. But even if we let that slide her mishandling was still extensive and criminal.
It is not nonsense, it's a serious felony and needs to be prosecuted. If she can beat the charges or work out a plea deal that's fine, but to let her just skate establishes that there are two tiers to our justice system, the tier most people are subject to. And second tier for the privileged elite.
No, I'm talking about actual Chemical munitions found. Not bottles of bleach but actual weaponized chlorine gas and mustard gas in artillery rounds. Chemical precursers are not WMD. Chemical agents in live warheads are.
The Iraq Survey Group found and documented caches of these actual WMD being all over the country, just no big singular stockpile that made for a good photo-op for the press.
The real fact is everybody right and left, knew that he had a program, but that he also had months to dismantle and hide it in the build-up to the invasion.
We found WMD's all over the place. We did not find an active production program, the mobile production labs or anything nuclear (yellowcake). But we found tons of Chemical weapons all across the country. To state that we did not find any WMD's is a total lie.
Or Brawndo, It's got Electrolytes! It's what plants crave!
It may not be popular but people know it. We've got over three decades of using those commands and that interface. If all cmd commands work, great. If not I foresee many complaints.
"There is no nuclear power plant in existence that charges its customers the full cost of mining, refining, construction, security, maintenance, disaster preparedness and waste disposal."
You keep stating this, citation needed. Yes they are very expensive to build, but produce for decades with very little actual fuel (as opposed to the constant supply of coal or NG needed for fossil fuel plants). And dismantling afterwards adds to the total cost. But if we can reduce the kneejerk reactions and opposition and cut the needless delays that often add years and multiply the total cost of construction the initial cost can be brought down. You say no plant charges it's customers in full yet most plants (at least in the west) are owned by power companies, how are those companies still operating and wanting to continue operating such plants.
We are not and have never been a direct democracy. A direct democracy will collapse and fail within a few years. The whims of the people are too capricious. Our founding fathers set us up as a Representative Republic for that very reason. And we are still a Representative Republic..
Actually it seems to be working just fine and as designed. The candidate who won the most states won, exactly as designed. It was not meant to be a democratic process but a representative republic process. There is no need to change it. It was never supposed to be a nationwide popular vote. A few Hyperdense cities should not control the politics of this still mostly rural and suburban nation.
You mean in response to the movement that the Democrats resisted until the Republicans pushed forward?
+1000
Her gender had NOTHING to do with her losing. All claims of such are pure BS and add nothing to the national discourse.
You can have the land, it's the equipment and personnel that make the land useful militarily.
And if we redirect that water to Arizona, they could grow the same crops for us instead.
It's an issue because CA has blocked up-river reservoir projects that would let the up-river states retain more of their share of the water for their use as guaranteed by the compact. But if CA left the Union, we could reduce the outflow at lake Powell and again at lake Meade and severely curtail the flow of water to CA. At that point the water could go to Nevada or AZ for use, and CO could then go ahead with their reservoirs and thus use more of the water which is mostly from CO UT and WY Mountains. Also AZ could grow more produce with more of the water thus replacing what CA has been growing.