To do it by touching the phone would take me several seconds. There are a few situations in which I'd have a much better use for those seconds. Arterial bleeding comes to mind.
If you're using a proprietary compiler, you're almost certainly linking in unknown code. You have to trust the vendor not to be actively malicious. Usually this is a reasonable assumption, but MS seems to be trying to falsify it.
It may not work that well. People from disadvantaged groups are likely to be better than their test scores say. Race-norming is an unpleasant idea, and it has its injustices, but it may increase overall fairness.
Personally, while college was more hard work and a whole lot more educational, it was easier in a very real sense. It's a lot easier for me to do work that I feel responsibility for than work that I'm compelled to do.
Broadcast TV and radio use a limited public good, and get regulated. I agree that the regulation is stupid and prudish, but it stays out of other US media. Since the 1950s, we've had magazines to show us nude women and discuss sex (not necessarily from healthy viewpoints). We now have a mostly unregulated Internet, with plenty of explicit sexual content, although vulnerable to DMCA takedown requests. The only thing I can think of that the US censors on the Internet is child pornography.
In practice, it's not as clear cut. Companies have used the DMCA to shut down expression. There's no penalty for filing a mostly bogus DMCA takedown claim, and some security research gets legally threatened because it would possibly include a way to bypass a DMCA-defined access mechanism.
The Internet had DNS some time before the Web was invented. Ever seen a bang mail path? That was before email got automatically routed, and consisted in a list of URLs based on domain names separated by exclamation points (bangs). Those couldn't work without some sort of DNS system.
It's worse than you imply. Germany was not well-defined until 1871 (establishing one country that did not include Austria). I think you typo'ed the liberation of most of SE Europe, which was 1912 rather than 1922.
The only government in the world that's lasted longer than the US government without major changes by force or changes in sovereignity is the UK's, as far as I can tell.
Different countries have different ways to break WWII down. The Finns had the Winter War (1939-40) and the Continuation War (1941-44), and I don't remember if they have a separate war name for the fighting involved in kicking the Germans out of northern Finland. The Soviets had the Great Patriotic War flanked by two periods of fighting the Japanese and the Winter War against Finland.
The start of WWII is actually pretty arbitrary. The first conflict of the ones that merged into WWII was in 1937 (Japan vs. China), The European war opened in September 1939 and continued to May 1945, but it was largely isolated campaigns much like the Napoleonic Wars (note the plural) until June 22, 1941. That started the constant warring in Europe, and also broke the war out of Central and Western Europe, making the European involvement larger than the pre-US-entry Great War. December 1941 is when the US became involved and the European and Pacific wars merged together.
The affair isn't simple or clear-cut, and anything to do with Assange has political implications by now. Assange did claim political persecution, and some countries agreed with him for their own reasons. Ecuador is not sticking its neck out. The worst that would happen is that the UK would decide that diplomatic immunity does not apply to Assange, and enter the Ecuadorian embassy and politely remove Assange without looking at anything.
So you're willing to talk about the cost of Clinton's clothes, but not interested in Trump's. Check. You've done nothing to convince me that this isn't plain and simple sexism, of the sort I've seen many times before.
Clinton is trying to get elected President, and she's going to do whatever she can to do that. This includes wearing expensive clothes, because that's a power signal. If she is elected, she can do a lot more than $12K worth of difference to those less well off. You may not like the game, but the reality is that the candidates have to play it.
Conservatives tend to donate some more than Liberals, but that's primarily due to the fact that churches automatically count as non-profit organizations. Some churches do really great charity work, and some are insular. (A friend of mine commented that a church budget is a theological document, comparing the music budget of a big Eastern Episcopalian church to the budget of the Episcopalian diocese of South Dakota.) Conservatives tend to donate to help people like themselves, while liberal charity tends to benefit more kinds of people. After looking at some of the research, I really can't tell who's being more generous in spirit.
However, you feel like pulling a wild guess out of your ass for how much Trump donated, when neither you nor I know. I only brought the subject up because you were comparing the results of a fund-raising campaign on Trump's part for what is apparently Trump's favorite cause with Clinton's personal donations to that cause. I'm really not interested in comparing your perception of Clinton's charity to your belief that Trump's charity is obviously clean. I'd be interested in objective evaluations of either, but the Presidential election should not be decided on charitable contributions.
Sounds to me like the Clintons are milking the speech fees for all they're worth, and I really don't see what's wrong with that. Trump's money-making efforts aren't particularly clean.
As far as charges go, I'm unaware of any criminal charges against Clinton. I've seen uninformed speculation (and all speculation is uninformed at this time) that she should or will be charged. I'm awaiting the FBI's conclusions.
In other words, you claim you can do your own investigation, and my statement that nobody outside the FBI really knows what's going on in their investigation stands. Personally, I'd trust the FBI investigation more than I'd trust yours.
Lots of people voted for the Iraq war, based on misleading statements from the President. As President, she'd have access to less filtered and slanted information. Currently, I'm unaware of US boots on the ground in Libya and Syria. We are active in the air against ISIS, which I consider to be a good thing. I'm not offhand sure what you mean about Libya, as most of what I've heard about Libya in the last few years is about Benghazi and the desperate effort to find something wrong she might have done.
The speed of sound has nothing to do with pressure. It has to do with temperature, since the transmission of anything related to a gas is going to go at the speed of the gas molecules.
We're pretty much looking at advancements that affected Europe, since that's where the scientific revolution started. We can leave the Chinese out of this for the most part, since they were pretty isolated. The Arab advancements in what's being called the Dark Ages fed directly into Europe, and so Renaissance Europe had more advanced mathematics to go along with the improved technology
Compared to Greek and Roman civilization it was pretty dead philosophically. Neither Greeks, Romans, or what you call Dark Age civilization had any reasonable variant of science. However, technology continued to improve. I'm not an expert here, but it doesn't look to me like the advance of technology was particularly slowed, and during parts of it there was a lot of advancement in Muslim areas, which was fed back to Europe.
Historically, that's very dangerous reasoning. Someone who has made a great deal of money might well be interested in acquiring more. Trump doesn't have a record of making money in particularly clean ways. And, if he's rich enough not to worry about speaking fees (why the scare quotes?), why the scam known as Trump University?
Okay, how many wars did Hillary start? I don't offhand remember being at war with Russia. (There was the post-WWI expedition to the Vladivostok and Archangelsk in the Russian Civil War, of course, but I'm really too young to remember that.)
"The investigation is ongoing" is also a big difference from "The FBI has found evidence sufficient to indict", since they're going to keep their mouths shut until they finish. Nobody outside the FBI has really reliable knowledge of what the investigation is turning up.
Actually, people have been looking at how truthful candidates have been in the campaign. Clinton is arguably the most honest, in something of a clump with Sanders and Kasich. Cruz and Trump have been lying their asses off. I REALLY don't want Kasich as President, but I have to admire him for telling more or less the truth most of the time.
Sanders wouldn't be nearly as successful in the actual campaign as he is in the polls.
He has not been seriously attacked yet. If he were nominated, the Republicans would hammer hard on "Socialism" and throw any dirt they could find at him, and when they ran out of dirt they'd paint sawdust to look like dirt and throw it at him. Sanders would lose a lot of popularity.
On the other hand, the Republicans have been attacking Clinton for years, including thirteen Congressional attempts to find something, anything, she did noticeably wrong about Benghazi. They can't step up their attacks and have it do any good, because anyone who's inclined to believe them is already anti-Clinton.
Hitler pushed some companies into being run by individual Nazis, and cozied up to the big capitalists. The means of production were almost exclusively in private hands.
As someone who has studied the period in some detail, I never understood calling Hitler left-wing (at least not after his affiliation with the Bavarian government of 1920 or so).
You don't know much about socialism and the NSDAP, apparently. The NSDAP did have a socialist wing in 1933, but that was shortly terminated with extreme prejudice (see the Night of the Long Knives). After that, the Socialist part was kept for propaganda purposes (Hitler discusses this sort of thing in Mein Kampf), but the actual policies of the Third Reich were not anywhere near socialist.
Slashdot Mirror
Because they screwed up? While "in route" is wrong, it's perfectly understandable.
To do it by touching the phone would take me several seconds. There are a few situations in which I'd have a much better use for those seconds. Arterial bleeding comes to mind.
It's completely hands-off calling, and in a first-aid situation that is an advantage. Whether it's worth the monitoring is another question.
If you're using a proprietary compiler, you're almost certainly linking in unknown code. You have to trust the vendor not to be actively malicious. Usually this is a reasonable assumption, but MS seems to be trying to falsify it.
It may not work that well. People from disadvantaged groups are likely to be better than their test scores say. Race-norming is an unpleasant idea, and it has its injustices, but it may increase overall fairness.
Personally, while college was more hard work and a whole lot more educational, it was easier in a very real sense. It's a lot easier for me to do work that I feel responsibility for than work that I'm compelled to do.
Broadcast TV and radio use a limited public good, and get regulated. I agree that the regulation is stupid and prudish, but it stays out of other US media. Since the 1950s, we've had magazines to show us nude women and discuss sex (not necessarily from healthy viewpoints). We now have a mostly unregulated Internet, with plenty of explicit sexual content, although vulnerable to DMCA takedown requests. The only thing I can think of that the US censors on the Internet is child pornography.
In practice, it's not as clear cut. Companies have used the DMCA to shut down expression. There's no penalty for filing a mostly bogus DMCA takedown claim, and some security research gets legally threatened because it would possibly include a way to bypass a DMCA-defined access mechanism.
The Internet had DNS some time before the Web was invented. Ever seen a bang mail path? That was before email got automatically routed, and consisted in a list of URLs based on domain names separated by exclamation points (bangs). Those couldn't work without some sort of DNS system.
It's worse than you imply. Germany was not well-defined until 1871 (establishing one country that did not include Austria). I think you typo'ed the liberation of most of SE Europe, which was 1912 rather than 1922.
The only government in the world that's lasted longer than the US government without major changes by force or changes in sovereignity is the UK's, as far as I can tell.
Different countries have different ways to break WWII down. The Finns had the Winter War (1939-40) and the Continuation War (1941-44), and I don't remember if they have a separate war name for the fighting involved in kicking the Germans out of northern Finland. The Soviets had the Great Patriotic War flanked by two periods of fighting the Japanese and the Winter War against Finland.
The start of WWII is actually pretty arbitrary. The first conflict of the ones that merged into WWII was in 1937 (Japan vs. China), The European war opened in September 1939 and continued to May 1945, but it was largely isolated campaigns much like the Napoleonic Wars (note the plural) until June 22, 1941. That started the constant warring in Europe, and also broke the war out of Central and Western Europe, making the European involvement larger than the pre-US-entry Great War. December 1941 is when the US became involved and the European and Pacific wars merged together.
The affair isn't simple or clear-cut, and anything to do with Assange has political implications by now. Assange did claim political persecution, and some countries agreed with him for their own reasons. Ecuador is not sticking its neck out. The worst that would happen is that the UK would decide that diplomatic immunity does not apply to Assange, and enter the Ecuadorian embassy and politely remove Assange without looking at anything.
So you're willing to talk about the cost of Clinton's clothes, but not interested in Trump's. Check. You've done nothing to convince me that this isn't plain and simple sexism, of the sort I've seen many times before.
Clinton is trying to get elected President, and she's going to do whatever she can to do that. This includes wearing expensive clothes, because that's a power signal. If she is elected, she can do a lot more than $12K worth of difference to those less well off. You may not like the game, but the reality is that the candidates have to play it.
Conservatives tend to donate some more than Liberals, but that's primarily due to the fact that churches automatically count as non-profit organizations. Some churches do really great charity work, and some are insular. (A friend of mine commented that a church budget is a theological document, comparing the music budget of a big Eastern Episcopalian church to the budget of the Episcopalian diocese of South Dakota.) Conservatives tend to donate to help people like themselves, while liberal charity tends to benefit more kinds of people. After looking at some of the research, I really can't tell who's being more generous in spirit.
However, you feel like pulling a wild guess out of your ass for how much Trump donated, when neither you nor I know. I only brought the subject up because you were comparing the results of a fund-raising campaign on Trump's part for what is apparently Trump's favorite cause with Clinton's personal donations to that cause. I'm really not interested in comparing your perception of Clinton's charity to your belief that Trump's charity is obviously clean. I'd be interested in objective evaluations of either, but the Presidential election should not be decided on charitable contributions.
Sounds to me like the Clintons are milking the speech fees for all they're worth, and I really don't see what's wrong with that. Trump's money-making efforts aren't particularly clean.
As far as charges go, I'm unaware of any criminal charges against Clinton. I've seen uninformed speculation (and all speculation is uninformed at this time) that she should or will be charged. I'm awaiting the FBI's conclusions.
In other words, you claim you can do your own investigation, and my statement that nobody outside the FBI really knows what's going on in their investigation stands. Personally, I'd trust the FBI investigation more than I'd trust yours.
Lots of people voted for the Iraq war, based on misleading statements from the President. As President, she'd have access to less filtered and slanted information. Currently, I'm unaware of US boots on the ground in Libya and Syria. We are active in the air against ISIS, which I consider to be a good thing. I'm not offhand sure what you mean about Libya, as most of what I've heard about Libya in the last few years is about Benghazi and the desperate effort to find something wrong she might have done.
The speed of sound has nothing to do with pressure. It has to do with temperature, since the transmission of anything related to a gas is going to go at the speed of the gas molecules.
We're pretty much looking at advancements that affected Europe, since that's where the scientific revolution started. We can leave the Chinese out of this for the most part, since they were pretty isolated. The Arab advancements in what's being called the Dark Ages fed directly into Europe, and so Renaissance Europe had more advanced mathematics to go along with the improved technology
Compared to Greek and Roman civilization it was pretty dead philosophically. Neither Greeks, Romans, or what you call Dark Age civilization had any reasonable variant of science. However, technology continued to improve. I'm not an expert here, but it doesn't look to me like the advance of technology was particularly slowed, and during parts of it there was a lot of advancement in Muslim areas, which was fed back to Europe.
Historically, that's very dangerous reasoning. Someone who has made a great deal of money might well be interested in acquiring more. Trump doesn't have a record of making money in particularly clean ways. And, if he's rich enough not to worry about speaking fees (why the scare quotes?), why the scam known as Trump University?
Okay, how many wars did Hillary start? I don't offhand remember being at war with Russia. (There was the post-WWI expedition to the Vladivostok and Archangelsk in the Russian Civil War, of course, but I'm really too young to remember that.)
"The investigation is ongoing" is also a big difference from "The FBI has found evidence sufficient to indict", since they're going to keep their mouths shut until they finish. Nobody outside the FBI has really reliable knowledge of what the investigation is turning up.
Actually, people have been looking at how truthful candidates have been in the campaign. Clinton is arguably the most honest, in something of a clump with Sanders and Kasich. Cruz and Trump have been lying their asses off. I REALLY don't want Kasich as President, but I have to admire him for telling more or less the truth most of the time.
Sanders wouldn't be nearly as successful in the actual campaign as he is in the polls.
He has not been seriously attacked yet. If he were nominated, the Republicans would hammer hard on "Socialism" and throw any dirt they could find at him, and when they ran out of dirt they'd paint sawdust to look like dirt and throw it at him. Sanders would lose a lot of popularity.
On the other hand, the Republicans have been attacking Clinton for years, including thirteen Congressional attempts to find something, anything, she did noticeably wrong about Benghazi. They can't step up their attacks and have it do any good, because anyone who's inclined to believe them is already anti-Clinton.
Hitler pushed some companies into being run by individual Nazis, and cozied up to the big capitalists. The means of production were almost exclusively in private hands.
As someone who has studied the period in some detail, I never understood calling Hitler left-wing (at least not after his affiliation with the Bavarian government of 1920 or so).
You don't know much about socialism and the NSDAP, apparently. The NSDAP did have a socialist wing in 1933, but that was shortly terminated with extreme prejudice (see the Night of the Long Knives). After that, the Socialist part was kept for propaganda purposes (Hitler discusses this sort of thing in Mein Kampf), but the actual policies of the Third Reich were not anywhere near socialist.