It was after the FCC decision that the phone company came through and tried selling us 40-1Kmb/s connections. (They had very little sales resistance here.)
Untreated water is not necessarily free in quantity in a certain areas. Many places have adequate water for the taking, and many don't. California was having a serious drought for a while, and if there had been an unlimited source of free water there would have been no problem.
It seems to me that you're a bit confused about trickle-down economics vs. businesses providing jobs. Taxing the rich less doesn't create jobs, but well-running businesses do. It seemed to me that cutting taxes and raising interest rates was hurting business and hence job creation, since new jobs require new activity or expanding old activity, which is easiest done by borrowing money.
What I'm interested in, as far as job protection goes, is what happens to the worker. Currently, a company can lay off thousands of workers and the area can be economically devastated. I'm much more interested in the second clause than the first. At-will employment is efficient for large companies, and if we can make it so mass layoffs aren't that bad we can let them do it with no problems. I think we're probably better off with tax-supported government safety nets that allow businesses to be closer to laissez-faire.
Trees aren't efficient enough. Given enough time, and no more CO2 being put in the air, we could grow trees and sequester the wood to reduce the CO2 content, but that's not going to happen. A process that's less useful than planting a tree now can perhaps be scaled, and we can't plant nearly enough trees to combat global warming.
Would be nice. It's easy to put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Avoiding it while keeping civilization going is really hard. Taking out enough to make a difference is going to be much harder. If we had the ability to control it, we might well want more CO2 than the 280ppm we had in 1850, although I think the current 400ppm is a real problem.
The solar cell is in there because it would be counterproductive to use fossil fuels to power the operation. The only way this makes the least bit of sense is if the energy used comes from wind or solar or something like that.
It's a way to have sunlight come into the facility and fuel usable for mobile operations go out.
Look at how many anti-Hillary comments there are. If you think Slashdot's in the tank, you're either ignorant or delusional.
I have not talked to anyone in the Clinton campaign about saying anything about her or this campaign. I certainly wouldn't accept money for such a thing. I bash ignorant and spiteful and stupid people for free. Consider it a public service.
So, you say that Saucier deliberately took photos of his reactor room? That sounds to me like a conscious decision to break the law, which Clinton hasn't been shown to have.
I note that nobody has yet shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no harm known. Instead, people persist in coming up with cases of deliberate violation of the law and trying to tell me they're equivalent.
You're confusing negligence with intent. If Clinton's actions were tantamount to a conscious decision, I'm sure there would have been many more classified documents on her systems. You're not providing evidence, other than your own opinions, that Clinton's negligence looked like a conscious decision, rather than incomplete attempts to keep classified documents off her personal systems.
I'm not a lawyer here, and I'm not saying she didn't break the law.
What I do know is that nobody has come up with a good account of anyone else facing criminal prosecution for what Clinton did. There have been criminal prosecutions for deliberate violations of the law, sure, but that's not what Clinton did. Nobody has shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence without intent involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no known harm. In practice, what she did has consistently been dealt with by yanking security clearances or maybe firing the perpetrator.
I read or heard somewhere that Doyle insisted that, if Garibaldi was going to have alcohol problems in the final season, it be shown realistically in all its ugliness.
As a true nerd, I watched all the episodes on the DVDs that had commentary twice, once with and once without. Everyone else always seemed to not actually be their characters in the commentary. Doyle, on the other hand, just projected Garibaldi, and I couldn't pick out two distinct personalities.
The first or second regular-season episode (i.e., not the pilot) had the Soul Hunters. The Soul Hunters thought they were preserving the soul, which would otherwise be destroyed, while many others thought they imprisoned the soul (which happened in the case of one planet, as shown in one of the movies). This is never clarified in general. Therefore, at the end of the episode, Delenn was either freeing or destroying souls, we don't actually know which.
At that time, I wasn't used to that kind of moral ambiguity in television. I was impressed.
The DNC did not sabotage itself. It ran business and politics as normal, and had its internal workings exposed. All political processes are ugly on the inside. If you were to read the RNC's emails, you'd find similar things. Many times you're far better off not knowing a portion of the truth, when you don't know the rest.
The FEC's job is not to regulate how parties select their nominees. Its job is to enforce the laws, and I rather doubt they strictly regulate a party's internal and non-financial practices.
Right now, in my state, we've got a simple and reliable method of verification, since the ballots are paper, and are preserved while the election is in doubt. There are random precinct-level recounts, and mandatory recounts for particularly close elections. The ballots are electronically counted and tabulated for the preliminary results, but can be independently checked later. I consider this a simple and reliable method of verification.
More importantly, I can explain this verification to, say, my cousins and my mother-in-law, and they can understand what's going on and what's keeping the actual voting fair. Any electronic scheme that leaves paper ballots that the voters prepare and deposit into a sealed container is equivalent, but if there's no paper the system is an unreliable black box to most voters.
If I knew more about you, I could no doubt construct a completely true narrative that would make you look like an asshole. You can lie with the truth; it just takes more skill. Goebbels wanted to have truth in his propaganda, because it made it more convincing.
It simply isn't true that we're better off the more true statements we know, if the statements have a systemic bias.
Are you implying that law, order, and justice are violated by not being strictly neutral in a nomination race?
If you think this sort of thing doesn't go on all over, you're painfully naive. If you think a political organization can function with full transparency, you're overidealistic. If you let crimes and misdeeds committed by foreigners to influence you during the electoral process, you're unpatriotic.
The DNC hack was a threat to democracy. It is necessary for political organizations to be able to discuss things in secret. Leaks are always going to show the people whose email is hacked in an unfavorable light, since private expressions are less sanitized than public ones. Since the DNC was hacked in this case, that makes the DNC look bad. If the RNC emails had been hacked, the RNC would doubtless look roughly as bad, perhaps better, perhaps worse.
The DNC is a political organization, and it was pretty obvious that they favored the Democrat in the race, as opposed to the Independent, and the more electable of the two. (Clinton has had crap thrown at her for decades, while Sanders hasn't faced the same level of lies, half-truths, and general vituperation, and would be vulnerable to attacks on eeevil soshulists.) Their purpose is to help come up with the best nominee.
There's evidence the DNC hacks came from Russia, and Wikileaks is a foreign organization. It looks to me like there's people outside the US who badly want Trump to win, enough to do dirty tricks, and I'm not happy about it.
Otto von Bismarck said that people who like laws and sausage should watch neither being made. The leaks provided us with very graphic pictures of the sausage factory.
Because, when the paper ballots were counted very carefully, under very close supervision by both major parties and the State of Minnesota, it turned out that a few hundred more people voted for Franken than Coleman. Simple.
The preliminary announcements can easily be a thousand or more votes off, for whatever reasons (there are millions cast, so the initial reports are pretty darn accurate). The Franken election was exceedingly close, and so that shift decided the election, with no hanky-panky involved. At the top levels of supervision, more Republicans than Democrats were involved, and I'm pretty sure they would have been able to stop pro-Franken cheating.
Clinton has laid out her policies, and seems to stick to them. Trump has said a wide variety of things, many of which contradict each other, and it's reasonable to doubt he'd carry out what he says. Trump's background is very strongly pro-big-business.
You can use an iPhone. Have the fingerprint sensor turned off, use a 6-digit PIN, and have wipe-after-ten-tries selected. A 4-digit PIN allows a 1% chance at guessing the PIN, which may or may not be satisfactory for you. There may well be Androids with that attention to security, but I don't know for certain, not following Android phones all that closely.
My Bics last only a couple of years, tops. I may use them more than you.
My sister-in-law's phone has never, to the best of my knowledge, had a battery replacement. It may have gotten light use; my batteries are always badly degraded when the three-year mark comes along. I'm hoping to keep it usable until the new iPhones come out, at which point either I'll buy a 7 version, I'll buy the SE a hundred dollars cheaper than it is now, or I'll get the battery replaced.
Apple usually ships high-quality hardware, but I agree that's impressive for the battery to still be working.
And my son still uses a dumb phone, which I don't understand, but it's his choice.
I checked some of the references in the post you cited.
Petraeus deliberately leaked classified material. A Marine Major transferred classified material to his personal device or devices, and took it home to the US. Drake deliberately leaked to the press. IIRC, the slashdot post mentioned someone who had been forced to resign, which is not prosecution. I couldn't get to one case because the web filters here blocked it as political, which I take as evidence that the story might be slanted. In all of these cases, there was intent to violate the law, which is absent in Clinton's case.
In other words, I still haven't seen a precedent for prosecution for being negligent with a few classified documents (less than 200 counts as "few" here), with no evidence that the documents went anywhere they shouldn't have. I'd be interested in hearing of one.
FWIW, a friend posted on Facebook a clip from a Republican Congressman who was clearly intent on putting Clinton in the worst light possible. He said there was no precedent for prosecution, and he wanted one.
Slashdot Mirror
It was after the FCC decision that the phone company came through and tried selling us 40-1Kmb/s connections. (They had very little sales resistance here.)
Untreated water is not necessarily free in quantity in a certain areas. Many places have adequate water for the taking, and many don't. California was having a serious drought for a while, and if there had been an unlimited source of free water there would have been no problem.
It seems to me that you're a bit confused about trickle-down economics vs. businesses providing jobs. Taxing the rich less doesn't create jobs, but well-running businesses do. It seemed to me that cutting taxes and raising interest rates was hurting business and hence job creation, since new jobs require new activity or expanding old activity, which is easiest done by borrowing money.
What I'm interested in, as far as job protection goes, is what happens to the worker. Currently, a company can lay off thousands of workers and the area can be economically devastated. I'm much more interested in the second clause than the first. At-will employment is efficient for large companies, and if we can make it so mass layoffs aren't that bad we can let them do it with no problems. I think we're probably better off with tax-supported government safety nets that allow businesses to be closer to laissez-faire.
My cousins are hooked up to the grid, but I believe they generate more total electricity than they use. This isn't a complete solution, but it helps.
If a solar installation produces liquid fuel, it can be stored, so it doesn't matter much whether it produces none this week and a lot the next.
Trees aren't efficient enough. Given enough time, and no more CO2 being put in the air, we could grow trees and sequester the wood to reduce the CO2 content, but that's not going to happen. A process that's less useful than planting a tree now can perhaps be scaled, and we can't plant nearly enough trees to combat global warming.
Would be nice. It's easy to put more CO2 into the atmosphere. Avoiding it while keeping civilization going is really hard. Taking out enough to make a difference is going to be much harder. If we had the ability to control it, we might well want more CO2 than the 280ppm we had in 1850, although I think the current 400ppm is a real problem.
The solar cell is in there because it would be counterproductive to use fossil fuels to power the operation. The only way this makes the least bit of sense is if the energy used comes from wind or solar or something like that.
It's a way to have sunlight come into the facility and fuel usable for mobile operations go out.
Look at how many anti-Hillary comments there are. If you think Slashdot's in the tank, you're either ignorant or delusional.
I have not talked to anyone in the Clinton campaign about saying anything about her or this campaign. I certainly wouldn't accept money for such a thing. I bash ignorant and spiteful and stupid people for free. Consider it a public service.
So, you say that Saucier deliberately took photos of his reactor room? That sounds to me like a conscious decision to break the law, which Clinton hasn't been shown to have.
I note that nobody has yet shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no harm known. Instead, people persist in coming up with cases of deliberate violation of the law and trying to tell me they're equivalent.
You're confusing negligence with intent. If Clinton's actions were tantamount to a conscious decision, I'm sure there would have been many more classified documents on her systems. You're not providing evidence, other than your own opinions, that Clinton's negligence looked like a conscious decision, rather than incomplete attempts to keep classified documents off her personal systems.
I'm not a lawyer here, and I'm not saying she didn't break the law.
What I do know is that nobody has come up with a good account of anyone else facing criminal prosecution for what Clinton did. There have been criminal prosecutions for deliberate violations of the law, sure, but that's not what Clinton did. Nobody has shown me a case of criminal prosecution for negligence without intent involving a relatively small number of classified documents with no known harm. In practice, what she did has consistently been dealt with by yanking security clearances or maybe firing the perpetrator.
I read or heard somewhere that Doyle insisted that, if Garibaldi was going to have alcohol problems in the final season, it be shown realistically in all its ugliness.
As a true nerd, I watched all the episodes on the DVDs that had commentary twice, once with and once without. Everyone else always seemed to not actually be their characters in the commentary. Doyle, on the other hand, just projected Garibaldi, and I couldn't pick out two distinct personalities.
The first or second regular-season episode (i.e., not the pilot) had the Soul Hunters. The Soul Hunters thought they were preserving the soul, which would otherwise be destroyed, while many others thought they imprisoned the soul (which happened in the case of one planet, as shown in one of the movies). This is never clarified in general. Therefore, at the end of the episode, Delenn was either freeing or destroying souls, we don't actually know which.
At that time, I wasn't used to that kind of moral ambiguity in television. I was impressed.
The DNC did not sabotage itself. It ran business and politics as normal, and had its internal workings exposed. All political processes are ugly on the inside. If you were to read the RNC's emails, you'd find similar things. Many times you're far better off not knowing a portion of the truth, when you don't know the rest.
The FEC's job is not to regulate how parties select their nominees. Its job is to enforce the laws, and I rather doubt they strictly regulate a party's internal and non-financial practices.
Right now, in my state, we've got a simple and reliable method of verification, since the ballots are paper, and are preserved while the election is in doubt. There are random precinct-level recounts, and mandatory recounts for particularly close elections. The ballots are electronically counted and tabulated for the preliminary results, but can be independently checked later. I consider this a simple and reliable method of verification.
More importantly, I can explain this verification to, say, my cousins and my mother-in-law, and they can understand what's going on and what's keeping the actual voting fair. Any electronic scheme that leaves paper ballots that the voters prepare and deposit into a sealed container is equivalent, but if there's no paper the system is an unreliable black box to most voters.
If I knew more about you, I could no doubt construct a completely true narrative that would make you look like an asshole. You can lie with the truth; it just takes more skill. Goebbels wanted to have truth in his propaganda, because it made it more convincing.
It simply isn't true that we're better off the more true statements we know, if the statements have a systemic bias.
He did win re-election with a significantly improved margin of victory.
Are you implying that law, order, and justice are violated by not being strictly neutral in a nomination race?
If you think this sort of thing doesn't go on all over, you're painfully naive. If you think a political organization can function with full transparency, you're overidealistic. If you let crimes and misdeeds committed by foreigners to influence you during the electoral process, you're unpatriotic.
The DNC hack was a threat to democracy. It is necessary for political organizations to be able to discuss things in secret. Leaks are always going to show the people whose email is hacked in an unfavorable light, since private expressions are less sanitized than public ones. Since the DNC was hacked in this case, that makes the DNC look bad. If the RNC emails had been hacked, the RNC would doubtless look roughly as bad, perhaps better, perhaps worse.
The DNC is a political organization, and it was pretty obvious that they favored the Democrat in the race, as opposed to the Independent, and the more electable of the two. (Clinton has had crap thrown at her for decades, while Sanders hasn't faced the same level of lies, half-truths, and general vituperation, and would be vulnerable to attacks on eeevil soshulists.) Their purpose is to help come up with the best nominee.
There's evidence the DNC hacks came from Russia, and Wikileaks is a foreign organization. It looks to me like there's people outside the US who badly want Trump to win, enough to do dirty tricks, and I'm not happy about it.
Otto von Bismarck said that people who like laws and sausage should watch neither being made. The leaks provided us with very graphic pictures of the sausage factory.
Because, when the paper ballots were counted very carefully, under very close supervision by both major parties and the State of Minnesota, it turned out that a few hundred more people voted for Franken than Coleman. Simple.
The preliminary announcements can easily be a thousand or more votes off, for whatever reasons (there are millions cast, so the initial reports are pretty darn accurate). The Franken election was exceedingly close, and so that shift decided the election, with no hanky-panky involved. At the top levels of supervision, more Republicans than Democrats were involved, and I'm pretty sure they would have been able to stop pro-Franken cheating.
Clinton has laid out her policies, and seems to stick to them. Trump has said a wide variety of things, many of which contradict each other, and it's reasonable to doubt he'd carry out what he says. Trump's background is very strongly pro-big-business.
You can use an iPhone. Have the fingerprint sensor turned off, use a 6-digit PIN, and have wipe-after-ten-tries selected. A 4-digit PIN allows a 1% chance at guessing the PIN, which may or may not be satisfactory for you. There may well be Androids with that attention to security, but I don't know for certain, not following Android phones all that closely.
My Bics last only a couple of years, tops. I may use them more than you.
My sister-in-law's phone has never, to the best of my knowledge, had a battery replacement. It may have gotten light use; my batteries are always badly degraded when the three-year mark comes along. I'm hoping to keep it usable until the new iPhones come out, at which point either I'll buy a 7 version, I'll buy the SE a hundred dollars cheaper than it is now, or I'll get the battery replaced.
Apple usually ships high-quality hardware, but I agree that's impressive for the battery to still be working.
And my son still uses a dumb phone, which I don't understand, but it's his choice.
I checked some of the references in the post you cited.
Petraeus deliberately leaked classified material. A Marine Major transferred classified material to his personal device or devices, and took it home to the US. Drake deliberately leaked to the press. IIRC, the slashdot post mentioned someone who had been forced to resign, which is not prosecution. I couldn't get to one case because the web filters here blocked it as political, which I take as evidence that the story might be slanted. In all of these cases, there was intent to violate the law, which is absent in Clinton's case.
In other words, I still haven't seen a precedent for prosecution for being negligent with a few classified documents (less than 200 counts as "few" here), with no evidence that the documents went anywhere they shouldn't have. I'd be interested in hearing of one.
FWIW, a friend posted on Facebook a clip from a Republican Congressman who was clearly intent on putting Clinton in the worst light possible. He said there was no precedent for prosecution, and he wanted one.