The propellant in the shotgun shell is also an explosive. That is hardly something to fear. My point being that a drone being flown over my property and violating FAA rules will be shot down first and then we'll hash it out in court.
In the late 1960s, Jacques Cousteau documented dead coral regions in the Red Sea in his book Life and Death in a Coral Sea. This during a time when people thought we were slipping into another Ice Age.
I'm totally sick of the hyperbolic propaganda. Stop lying.
I would figure hitting it on one of the quadcopter arms would probably break some plastic and alter its momentum, but wouldn't necessarily knock it down. If you shorted the battery out with a shot, then maybe...or damaged the rf antenna.
Have you practically experimented with this? Sounds like fun...
So what's the issue here, beside the fact that their more modern systems are less appealing than those that are being replaced - looking at MBP with the touch bar and the Macbook with one single port.
If Flynn had an unfiltered Internet connection, good on him. They exist all over the place and for good reason. The NIPR connections are so sanitized, you can't get anywhere interesting or useful on them. Essentially, nowadays they are whitelisted to protect the stupid office staff from malware and to stop them from whacking off to porn in the office. SIPR/JWICS/etc connections obviously won't have any kind of net access, they are airgapped networks.
It's really easy to see why the head of the NSA would have a justification for an unfiltered connection at times.
As long as the TEMPEST rules are followed, the presence of another network connection is an irrelevancy. If you can't handle classification correctly, you belong in jail and out of the role of handling it (looking at you HIllary).
If some asshat came up with a rule preventing an unfiltered unclass net connection - which would be by its nature a local rule - that person was an asshat and should have been ignored. There are a lot of those in the government as well, sadly.
In terms of sharing classified information with other nations, there have been many ad hoc methods of transferring information to close allies over time to get around shitty procedures. When friendly lives are of concern, sometimes even foreign nationals get access to US-only networks and by definition, US-only intel.
I'd be more likely to judge based on the actual circumstances of the transfer than on what amounts to innuendo, which is all this article has to offer.
Black Lives Matter IS racist. Under any definition.
Preventing illegal immigration isn't. Nativist? Sure. Racist? No. Conflate the two and you're just dishonest.
Rather claimed the fake Bush documents were authentic. Then claimed they were "fake but true". To this day he claims there was something to them.
The Electoral College is the arbiter of who becomes President under the Constitution. If that fact were different, the election campaign would have been conducted differently. I'm not at all certain the result would have been different, though. Driving Republican turnout in CA and NY is not a vital interest of Republican campaigns under the current system, but if it were done, you'd see the popular vote close up easily. Exactly how much GOTV effort was expended in CA or NY on the Republican side? Zero. For that matter, little GOTV effort was expended in Texas or Illinois or the Deep South or the Mountain West (excepting battlegrounds like NV and CO)...you get the picture.
The Democrats played this election _all wrong_ and failed across the board.
The truth is that the vast mass of the public is stupid and taken in by false narratives. The mainstream media has been benefiting from this for decades. The fact that someone else cracked the code and found an alternative delivery system is the "problem" here, not the existence of dishonest media.
Jayson Blair. Dan Rather's "fake but true" documents. Brian Williams in general...the list goes on and on and on. Hell, Walter Cronkite was often giving out palpable untruths in regards Vietnam on the evening news when I was a kid. The problem then was that we didn't find out the stuff was actually untrue until 25 years later with the research tools available via the Internet.
Like he's the only business that had to settle a fraud suit. Every disagreement is fraud in business. "he advertised something and it wasn't what he said it was!!" I doubt the actual merits of the suit justified settling anyway, he probably did it just to make it go away after winning the election, else he would have fought it to the end.
"Hillary wasn't perfect" - she was guilty of espionage. Period. Probably guilty of selling influence too via the Clinton Foundation. This is pound me in the ass 20+ years stuff, not some stupid civil suit. Trump is letting her off because it's not productive, not because she isn't guilty.
Lastly, vis a vis waterboarding: scruples are perfectly acceptable in your safe ivory tower. When the bad guys with zero scruples come calling, your tune will change quickly.
The Republican legislators would have been compelled to work with him on things if he had gone directly to the people and offered real solutions to their problems. But Jarrett and Emanuel and the rest were convinced that it was a Democratic moment and did all the partisan shit they could during the first two years when this was possible. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"
"...we won". "You didn't build that" "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want." Or how about the one where he said health care aka Obamacare would become more popular with time.
Leave out the offensive policy actions even, the attitude was condescending and he offered people on the other side nothing at all.
A universal basic income is just Leninist Communism under a different title. It didn't work anywhere it was tried. Toilet paper and the lack thereof illustrates the issue better than anything, but if you want to dig deeper, look at the relative productivity of private plots vs collective farms in the Soviet Union.
If the Electoral College is in doubt and misses its date, the House may decide.
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. " - a quote from Article II, Section 1.
The 2008 and 2012 response was that the people in rural America were evil and the hopey changey shit would put all those old people out of the political calculus until the grave took them, because the Left won.
You really didn't have to sell Middle America on being anti-Democrat. They all picked it up on their own over the last 8 years - nothing has been going their way. The thing that Trump did was convince them to even go out and vote. Clinton and her media water carriers turning this into a negative campaigning shitshow is what made the Democrats and the college-educated Republicans stay home. That and third-term fatigue.
Anyway, it's all there in the results if you care to look. That's why the people who watch this stuff - Cohn, Silver, Trende, etc. are reacting badly to the suggestion of massive voter fraud. It isn't there. They would have seen it themselves. These are smart people.
I have voted in several places over the years. In NJ we used to use these lever machines with a punched card in the back. Each lever was labeled with a candidate/race/issue/whatever. They'd run it through a punched card reader to tabulate the results after you voted. You saw them remove the cartridge with the card in it from the voting machine between each voter. It was rather reliable and obvious.
In MD now, we use a bubble sheet like a standardized test. You bubble it out and then insert it into the reader yourself. Election worker verifies it got read and you leave.
I would rather have either of these systems than a person in control of tabulating the votes. First, the political parties have judges in each precinct that can go over attempts at fraud or damaged ballots. Second, at the end of the night, they can re-tabulate the ballots as necessary to verify the vote counts.
I really do not see the problem with the system as it exists in any of the places I have lived.
Slashdot Mirror
The propellant in the shotgun shell is also an explosive. That is hardly something to fear. My point being that a drone being flown over my property and violating FAA rules will be shot down first and then we'll hash it out in court.
In the late 1960s, Jacques Cousteau documented dead coral regions in the Red Sea in his book Life and Death in a Coral Sea. This during a time when people thought we were slipping into another Ice Age.
I'm totally sick of the hyperbolic propaganda. Stop lying.
I would figure hitting it on one of the quadcopter arms would probably break some plastic and alter its momentum, but wouldn't necessarily knock it down. If you shorted the battery out with a shot, then maybe...or damaged the rf antenna.
Have you practically experimented with this? Sounds like fun...
Birdshot at 40 yards should do the trick. Plinking a drone with ball ammo from a rifle probably wouldn't take it down.
So what's the issue here, beside the fact that their more modern systems are less appealing than those that are being replaced - looking at MBP with the touch bar and the Macbook with one single port.
Easily sorted so we can cull the subhuman Left without remorse.
Today they write supposedly comedic Amazon reviews.
And they wonder why the word "pussy" is the first one that comes to mind. I guess Trump grabbed you really good.
Bored people in boring places read Time.
You could send some of what you're smoking my way, please.
For christ's sake, this is a dumb article.
If Flynn had an unfiltered Internet connection, good on him. They exist all over the place and for good reason. The NIPR connections are so sanitized, you can't get anywhere interesting or useful on them. Essentially, nowadays they are whitelisted to protect the stupid office staff from malware and to stop them from whacking off to porn in the office. SIPR/JWICS/etc connections obviously won't have any kind of net access, they are airgapped networks.
It's really easy to see why the head of the NSA would have a justification for an unfiltered connection at times.
As long as the TEMPEST rules are followed, the presence of another network connection is an irrelevancy. If you can't handle classification correctly, you belong in jail and out of the role of handling it (looking at you HIllary).
If some asshat came up with a rule preventing an unfiltered unclass net connection - which would be by its nature a local rule - that person was an asshat and should have been ignored. There are a lot of those in the government as well, sadly.
In terms of sharing classified information with other nations, there have been many ad hoc methods of transferring information to close allies over time to get around shitty procedures. When friendly lives are of concern, sometimes even foreign nationals get access to US-only networks and by definition, US-only intel.
I'd be more likely to judge based on the actual circumstances of the transfer than on what amounts to innuendo, which is all this article has to offer.
Black Lives Matter IS racist. Under any definition.
Preventing illegal immigration isn't. Nativist? Sure. Racist? No. Conflate the two and you're just dishonest.
Rather claimed the fake Bush documents were authentic. Then claimed they were "fake but true". To this day he claims there was something to them.
The Electoral College is the arbiter of who becomes President under the Constitution. If that fact were different, the election campaign would have been conducted differently. I'm not at all certain the result would have been different, though. Driving Republican turnout in CA and NY is not a vital interest of Republican campaigns under the current system, but if it were done, you'd see the popular vote close up easily. Exactly how much GOTV effort was expended in CA or NY on the Republican side? Zero. For that matter, little GOTV effort was expended in Texas or Illinois or the Deep South or the Mountain West (excepting battlegrounds like NV and CO) ...you get the picture.
The Democrats played this election _all wrong_ and failed across the board.
The truth is that the vast mass of the public is stupid and taken in by false narratives. The mainstream media has been benefiting from this for decades. The fact that someone else cracked the code and found an alternative delivery system is the "problem" here, not the existence of dishonest media.
Jayson Blair. Dan Rather's "fake but true" documents. Brian Williams in general...the list goes on and on and on. Hell, Walter Cronkite was often giving out palpable untruths in regards Vietnam on the evening news when I was a kid. The problem then was that we didn't find out the stuff was actually untrue until 25 years later with the research tools available via the Internet.
The fake news shit is just that, shit. If you want no one to ever believe media again, keep it up with the fake news crap.
Ethics are required. If you can't get there, then no one is going to believe your shit again, ever.
Like he's the only business that had to settle a fraud suit. Every disagreement is fraud in business. "he advertised something and it wasn't what he said it was!!" I doubt the actual merits of the suit justified settling anyway, he probably did it just to make it go away after winning the election, else he would have fought it to the end.
"Hillary wasn't perfect" - she was guilty of espionage. Period. Probably guilty of selling influence too via the Clinton Foundation. This is pound me in the ass 20+ years stuff, not some stupid civil suit. Trump is letting her off because it's not productive, not because she isn't guilty.
Lastly, vis a vis waterboarding: scruples are perfectly acceptable in your safe ivory tower. When the bad guys with zero scruples come calling, your tune will change quickly.
The Republican legislators would have been compelled to work with him on things if he had gone directly to the people and offered real solutions to their problems. But Jarrett and Emanuel and the rest were convinced that it was a Democratic moment and did all the partisan shit they could during the first two years when this was possible. "Don't let a good crisis go to waste"
And therefore created a self-fulfilling prophecy.
"...we won". "You didn't build that" "That's the good thing about being president, I can do whatever I want." Or how about the one where he said health care aka Obamacare would become more popular with time.
Leave out the offensive policy actions even, the attitude was condescending and he offered people on the other side nothing at all.
A universal basic income is just Leninist Communism under a different title. It didn't work anywhere it was tried. Toilet paper and the lack thereof illustrates the issue better than anything, but if you want to dig deeper, look at the relative productivity of private plots vs collective farms in the Soviet Union.
If the Electoral College is in doubt and misses its date, the House may decide.
"The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner choose the President. " - a quote from Article II, Section 1.
The fuck-all Obama ever did to try to reach the people who didn't like him.
The 2008 and 2012 response was that the people in rural America were evil and the hopey changey shit would put all those old people out of the political calculus until the grave took them, because the Left won.
That didn't work out, did it?
The reason you don't recognize it is because you're still in your media bubble. Rub some elbows with people in rural America.
You really didn't have to sell Middle America on being anti-Democrat. They all picked it up on their own over the last 8 years - nothing has been going their way. The thing that Trump did was convince them to even go out and vote. Clinton and her media water carriers turning this into a negative campaigning shitshow is what made the Democrats and the college-educated Republicans stay home. That and third-term fatigue.
Anyway, it's all there in the results if you care to look. That's why the people who watch this stuff - Cohn, Silver, Trende, etc. are reacting badly to the suggestion of massive voter fraud. It isn't there. They would have seen it themselves. These are smart people.
You need to get some.
I have voted in several places over the years. In NJ we used to use these lever machines with a punched card in the back. Each lever was labeled with a candidate/race/issue/whatever. They'd run it through a punched card reader to tabulate the results after you voted. You saw them remove the cartridge with the card in it from the voting machine between each voter. It was rather reliable and obvious.
In MD now, we use a bubble sheet like a standardized test. You bubble it out and then insert it into the reader yourself. Election worker verifies it got read and you leave.
I would rather have either of these systems than a person in control of tabulating the votes. First, the political parties have judges in each precinct that can go over attempts at fraud or damaged ballots. Second, at the end of the night, they can re-tabulate the ballots as necessary to verify the vote counts.
I really do not see the problem with the system as it exists in any of the places I have lived.
Because high quality champagne doesn't go as far, and the poor are practical.