No he was doing what he does playing word games, which he consistently does in testimony. Youtube any of it. My argument why he should not be believed is that he has a history of misleading the public with issues related to monitoring of communications by American Citizens. https://youtu.be/QwiUVUJmGjs
I am calling him lair because I have pretty strong evidence he has lied before about similar subjects. Its a tautology, Clapper is untrustworthy because he is untrustworthy. He has lied before about this subject, the assumption must be that his testimony can not be considered useful evidence going forward. Which is not say its impossible he is telling the truth now. Liars don't always lie. It is however hard to see what motivation he would have to be honest.
1) He isn't under oath this time so there is no personal risk if caught fibbing 2) His statement sort of exonerates himself and his political pals, maybe its true, but it also happens to be the lie he'd want to tell if it were otherwise 3) Its what everyone expects him to say, so he can expect little push back for people other than Trump and his surrogates, who already have animosity toward him.
No, what he said was "I can deny it". Which isn't actually a denial is it. Its a statement, but a meaningless. I can say the "sky is red," its easy to do, but it does not make for a red sky. Clapper is a SOB that has been caught lying before under oath. He escapes prosecution I think because many politicians are afraid of the deep state.
They told us our phone records were private too unless and until someone got a warrant, turned out that was not exactly the case. We have a secret court FISA, a FUCKING SECRET COURT, for which even after investigation are closed and intelligence actions are completed the records from which remain under seal often for decades! Any truly reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, part of Constitution the highest law of land does not all that shit. The leaks pretty much show the spooks are running basically wild. Its time to go after the three letters and the government can't do because they are scared of their own shadows. Unfortunately that leaves the likes of people who are probably not exactly of great character like Assange to do it.
So here we are with a CIA run by people Trump was insulting thorough his campaign. They participated in the attribution of the compromise of the DNC and foreign political propaganda (Note not election hacking or stealing because lets face it note vote total tampering has been alleged). Now we find them with a whole suite of tools for performing attacks and making it look like a foreign country, like Russia, did it. Can't get your flunky elected because she is to much a scandal ridden bitch half the country hates, do the next best thing undermine the credibility of the guy who does get elected so nobody will work with him, so he can't implement any reforms, and carry on business as usual. Right?
Trump might not have any real credibility but even if that is true he has a much as James Clapper, 0, and as much as any of the other three letters. As big a set back as it would be to our overall preparedness, I really believe nothing sort of a near complete housecleaning can fix this. Like literally dissolve the CIA, and NSA, and stand up a new organization with entirely new people former CIA/NSA workers need not apply and put the whole thing back under the control of the Pentagon inside the primary chain of command where it can be properly administrated and observed.
A lot of jobs don't pay enough to rent a place to live closer to work. How are people "idiots" for taking advantage of a sharp gradient in annual housing costs?
Which is the best argument against housing subsidies and subsidized mass transit. We have these giant city centers where a few mega corps pay salaries that 10 - 20x everything else in the region. You have folks making 20x living there in fancy penthouses, the folks making 15x living in downtown apartments and the folks making 10x trying to take a car into the city. Then you have all the support people making what might be generally considered a prevailing wage who either live in subsidized housing or take subsidized transportation.
Here is the thing though nobody would want to work in a giant office building that does not get cleaned. Nobody wants to live where they can't get a cup of coffee or a bagel made for them, they don't want to live where there is no retail of any kind. Those support workers are *required* The high earners and mega business that occupy our down towns are just corporate welfare recipients. Fast food workers would get $15 an hour downtown if we did away with these subsidies because otherwise there would be no hamburgers for sale downtown because there would be no employees to make them.
One of two things would happen, either downtown would start to suck and companies down there would leave unable to attract talent and go back to the company town model. This still exists look a Breezewood WV, or say Westfield Ohio. The company hires everyone. They outsource nothing, the guy serving burgers in the cafe is a corporate employee, so is the guy mowing the laws. They local bank is the company, so the local hotel, etc. This model works fine. People like, in fact ask anyone who lives there and the love it.
Or Two, bottom end wages will go up substantially which will free the rest of us from tax burden, or allow better services of other kinds, no longer supporting housing and transportation.
Their business is organizing crimes. They make it easy for illegal taxis to find customers.
No their business is aggregating, booking, and billing as a service to private taxis. There isn't anything inherently illegal about that business model. It may or may not even be a reasonable one for someone that wants to work as a livery driver. We shall see if the price supports and market are still there when the VC funny money runs out.
Now its true that Uber does not concern itself about the legality of private unlicensed taxis within the legal jurisdiction of various municipalities. Its not clear to me from a legal standpoint where the liability falls. Is the driver operating the illegal taxi or is uber. Some of that may depend on if uber drivers are determined to be employees or not.
I readily agree that laws should be enforced, and if they can't be enforced changed. The situation uber is creating where we have either a bunch of scofflaw drivers or a scofflaw company unber just getting away with it isn't acceptable. It undermines the rule of law itself.
it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi
I don't buy I was in SF Bay area just a couple weeks ago for a full week. I used cabs all week because Yellow cab made it so damned easy!
I called the first time talked to a person gave them address. Cab was there in less than 5 min. Called back their phone system remembered my previous pickup and destination address. Pressed a couple keys, cab was there in probably 5 min. Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel..... -> airport. No probables fast reliable service every time right at rush hour.
I agree they should be paid a fair wage, we might disagree what that wage is. I usually tip 20% but I will cut that back to 15%, 10% and in egregious cases none if the services is poor and I think its really that persons fault. I will got to %25 when I feel like I have been given exceptional attention too.
Slow service in a restaurant? I know that probably got as much to do with the kitchen as the wait staff. I won't hold that against them at all. Bring me the wrong order, well you either put in wrong or failed to realize it came from the kitchen wrong and get it fixed before bringing it to the table. That is on you, pal. Ditto if my glass of tea or water is allowed to remain empty. I'll forgive you if the place is packed and you have clearly been assigned to many tables but if that isn't the case well?
I think tipping is a good idea to keep service people honest. The waiter that never allows a patrons glass to sit empty. Takes orders promptly and reliably, is polite and helpful deserve to be rewarded beyond what the other staff get. That is hard for the proprietor to do short of surveying every customer on their way out the door. Letting the customers do that rewarding solves the problem. What we ought to do is go back to the old model of tipping. You set out some amount on the table at the start in small denominations and remove it thru the course of the meal or don't to give constant feedback. If the waiter saw $25 at the start and sees $23 a little later he/she knows you are not thrilled and they'd better shape up or it be only $20 by the time the meal is over.
I think the "sharing economy" is a scam, and (formerly?) middle class people running their cars into the ground operating an illicit taxi service is not "innovative" but an indictment of a dying economy and society eating itself.
I am not sure I don't intuitively agree with you. The scofflaw nature of it makes me pretty uncomfortable. I don't think the government should regulate the livery industry to the degree it does. I have libertarian leans, when it comes to regulation and barriers to entry. I also think the rule of law and the letter of the law should be taken seriously. If 'we the people' don't like the regulations on the industry we need to get the repealed or at least changed, what we should not do is just ignore them. Uber absolutely should be prevented from operating in places where there are laws that prohibit its model. That is true for lots of American cities and more should be done to prosecute them where they are out of compliance.
On the concept of the sharing economy and Uber's fundamental business of being a private taxi broker and aggregator does not seem wrong at face value. Cars are valuable assets and most owners under leverage them. If investors saw a manufacturer leaving industrial equipment idle most of the day they'd probably sue! As far as the economy goes its not the cars that concern me its the drivers. I have been in the car with plenty of Uber drivers that obviously had high levels of education and years of experience industry other than transportation. Uber has actually enhanced the economy putting an often idle asset to work (car), the problem is its put the less valuable asset to work, speaking both as a humanitarian and from a strictly economic point of view.
I don't know about you but I regularly visit clients and will spend a week onsite attending meeting and doing technical work for them. I usually need to go either to or from ${HOTEL} 10 times, while I am in ${CITY} so I want to be able to save the address, yes!
Don't be silly people are upset and rightly so because it is idiotic. "The moon is a harsh mistress" is fiction. Its a great book but like all fiction it has many conceits. In the book the moon is a mostly self sufficient colony. Without that moon residents would not even really have the option of attacking earth.
We can essentially conduct a siege at will by just not sending supplies. If its a send us stuff or else issue they can't really make to much good on the or else, part because of the tremendous amount of infrastructure it takes to send anything to the moon. I rather doubt any of the worlds large nations would have much capability to do so after a nuclear attack of any scale. Suppose they 'hit' a city like say Seattle, its not clearly directly tied to US Space capabilities. But But But... a Hiroshima type event there would trigger a massive credit freeze. It would make the housing crisis of 2k7&8 look like a non event. NASA depending on all kinds of private labor would be hard pressed to get a rocket to the moon. I doubt Space X with its own credit needs would do much better. So until the Moon is near a point where "it does not need us" this is a non starter.
The second major conceit is the moon already possess the technical means to fire the payloads. Using equipment that I suspect must have been built on earth. Its not trivial at all to 'drop rocks on earth from the moon' You have to accelerate a large enough mass to penetrate Earths atmosphere away from the moons gravity. That requires either massive chemical resources or something rail gun like (keep in mind the lunar lander could not get back to earth, most of the mass the returned to earth from the moon landings remained in space!). Its unlike the moon even offers the resources necessary to build such a thing. Its also unlikely we are going to deliver such a device and or even energy to run it there anytime soon.
"The moon is a harsh mistress" repented a complex political and technical situation that existed in a distant imagined future. The real world looks nothing like it, and we'd have lots of lead time to recognize things going in that direction before they got to that point.
It was not written to warn us against moon colonies, it was written to explore political and philosophical arguments. Getting all upset and worrying about attacks for a nascent moon colony today, shows me she was to dumb to understand what she was reading.
So the impairment of yahoo's online assets after two and probably a third massive breach is less than ten percent of the value. This is not actually a very good argument for big investments in security.
Or even just extend the version number field out one extra.X and tell third parties a release driver should always have a value of 1 or greater in the final position, where Microsoft always puts a zero in the final position.
Look I am not going to get drawn into a research project of pointing out specific records handling laws and sub paragraphs for an AC.
Its not the same thing as you calling me a child molester. You're accusation is baseless. In Hillary's case classified documents were found on system they should not be on. That is fact. Now how they got there matters. Did she send them before or after the classification was applied, should she have recognized them as materials that should be classified even if they were no so labeled etc. All that matters as it if she is specifically guilty of violating the law. To say there isn't evidence though is false. It just might not be proof.
To use your example it would be like if there was a kid screaming about how someone just molested them and a whiteness could put me in the general vicinity but could not confirm I was alone with the child. That would be evidence against me, but not proof I did anything wrong. I could not stop people from forming their own conclusions and while I would not like it I would expect and understand some limited action on their part, like not leaving me alone with their kids.
So it is with Hillary, she is a little to connected to a few to many ugly things. So while we don't lock her up, responsible people don't hand her the country to run either.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say.
I would say correctness requires both sending and correctly interpreting the message. If your use of English is such that your audience correctly understands the message with your original meaning and was not distracted by the character of the message itself, so as to drive its content from their minds, it is correct English.
That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty. It remains technically speaking an open question.
How serious an infraction it was, and how likely prosecution would have been successful, what the likely sentences could have been are all questions and largely matters of opinion for which you will find different ones offered by many qualified people who have experiences in those matters.
The Clintons were simply party to many scandals over two long a period to be trust worthy. Some of that perception has to do with a concerted partisan effort to to tie them to things, but its also true most of us even most other politicians don't lead such colorful lives.
She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party. Next you have all the evidence that the DNC deliberately scudded the Sanders campaign, a man who did not have all of Clinton's liabilities.
I can think of only two reasons to go forward with HRC in the begging (IE when the RNC field was still 12+ people of varied quality)
1) Usually the incumbent party looses the White House after a two term presidency. So she was always secretly a throw away candidate, it was consider by many to be her turn, and backing her got her out of the way so she would not be around for a 202[04] election they more likely could win.
2) She really had enough friends and dirt on people to force them to cooperate.
I am not making any apology for the left or the protesters. Don't read this that way. I think they are viscous mob opposed to the values that built this nation and make it the greatest on earth.
You have to understand their mindset though, they don't care about opinions and thinking. I and likely you see individualism as being about to explore your own ideas, do you own thing to the extent it allows you to earn a living and lawfully procure the food and shelter you require. You and I probably don't care or seek to control where or in whom they stick their genitals (provided the other party consents), we don't care what clothes they wear etc. We do care that we are permitted to form our own opinion of them.
If someone looks like a girl I am going to use the pronouns and language I am familiar with to talk about them, that is my freedom. To demand otherwise is to oppress me. I might think they are crazy person, I am entitled to that opinion and I should be entitled to act on that opinion when it comes to doing something like deciding to employ them.
They see that as antiindividualistic, in their warped view, you and I must validate and enable their choices or they are being oppressed. This is obviously madness, and if society is allowed to go down the road were everyone is their own little god entitled to a reality all their own, actual reality is certain to come crashing down upon us sooner or later. They don't get that though because their entire lives have been selfish, this is a generation of people who grew up without values. They only know if they scream loud enough they get what they want. It always worked before, so now that they are not getting their way they only know to try an scream louder.
It won't end well for them. The question is are we going to allow them to make it not end well for us too, or are we going to "Make America Great Again" and put a stop to it.
Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.
Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".
Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:
1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.
2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night
3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before
4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.
5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets
If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.
No he did not. There was no need to issue any stay or injunction against enforcement of the order, while the mater is being resolved. None, you only do that when you strongly believe the legal challenge is going to succeed.
It won't the states don't have standing, in the first place. The president clearly has the legal authority given by congress in the second. This was a political stunt by this judge. He should have dismissed the case because of the standing issue actually. Even if he did think the case could succeed why is the temporary order national? Why not just Washington and Minnesota? This was activism, and he should be removed!
WAIT how does the Constitution clearly say this in unlawful! Citation please or shut the fuck up. I don't believe you, I have read the Constitution. I researched this issue when Khizr Khan was spouting his pro-Hillary lies! There is quire a lot of settled at the SCOTUS level case law on this.
What is different here? I think you are full of shit.
yes well the next thing out of the mouths of people bitching about the immigration orders will be more bitching about the wealth gap. Hint constrict the labor supply than the value of laybor goes up.
Want to get existing US citizens to move to places where the work is, pay a wage that commands their attention.
Hmm list of TBTFs make extra legal argument to try and influence what should be a narrow legal question about the scope of a 1952 immigration act.
It does not matter if you or anyone else things the action is a good idea. What matters is a very simple Question of did the legislation enacted by congress give the president the power to do what he did or not. Washington State and these mega corps are conflating irrelevant issues and trying to get the courts to act outside the law. They don't care about the rule of law. They care about their influence and want to prove theirs is greater than POTUS.
This is ACTUAL fascism folks, what these corporations are doing right here. Judge James Robart ought to be impeached, because he never should have issued a stay on something so impactful when the legal challenge is as weak as it is. I don't care who appointed him or how unanimously he was confirmed. Those things also are not relevant, the only thing that matters is can and will he do his job today and he showed he cant!
I am going toss this out there. The whole reason to use a binary try is for efficient searching. If the tree is so big that you potentially can't search it because of stack space burned in a recursive walk, than a binary tree was probably the wrong choice for a top level data structure anyway.
Really, hmm you have done much research. That isn't surprising, I would not except the sort to call Trump supporters monkeys goes far out of his way to find alternative view points.
Go read the dailywire, or stream.org, or even the weeklystandard. There are lots of articles and lots of comments on those articles by people who are pretty happy Trump is keeping promises he made on the campaign trail. Support his foreign policy both in terms of style and agenda, support his trade policy, see gains being made in the direction of returning to our values of religious freedom.
There are critics on those sites too naturally because no thinking person would agree on everything the president does even if he is 'their guy'.
I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples.
It absolutely was a threat , it was plain call for a military coup, with execution of the current leader as baked into the plan. The left is so concerned about 'causal violence' but they don't apparently listen to the violence implicit in their own rhetoric. Now do I think spouting off on social media and awards shows is likely to lead to a riot or violence, no so it does not meet the standards for which speech can or should be restrained. It was neither a credible threat nor is it likely to provoke action. Kinda like all the stuff people upset with a decade of Obama rule have said. Recall though the left has demanded they be silenced, created safe spaces, and generally advocated for a culture of fear, its their bed and now as a conservative I am more than happy they should lie in it.
I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."
Interesting I think a sizable number, a large majority actually, of Trump detractors are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even watch the news, they watch the Daily Show, read a collection of facebook posts, and unresearched buzz feed blogs and tell themselves how informed they are, they had little idea of who what Trump was before they voted against him (if they bothered to vote at all). They only knew about a few bits he did for entertainment programs and a bunch of context free soundbites.
Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".
I would suggest most of the people worried about Trump are in denial, they don't want to believe what it implies. From their point of view, they are so much smarter than everyone else. Loosing the election implies that might not be true, their certainty of victory right up until election evinces there ability to be very wrong. It suggest their other unexamined but cherished beliefs about how the world works and underlying philosophy might also be counter factual. They can't admit that. So they create daemons like Bannon who has to be one of these terrible racist, sexist, bigots, or homophobes because everyone knows you don't have to listen to those people, but even though nobody listens to them they are still all powerful and wield their secret privilege to control the nation. Never mind that nobody can find actual evidence of Bannon doing anything conventionally thought of as racist, sexist, or homophobic, nope his publication ran some clickbait headlines once upon a time where he wasn't even the by line; but they got his number, he is a scary bigoted Illuminati member!
Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob?
No. he won't, just like the right-wing survivalist militia types never actually led any bloody siege on Washing DC dragging the Obama's from the beds under the cover of darkness!
I hope it won't go that far.
I am not sure I believe that in general but I'll take you at your word you personally would not want that. A lot of anti-trump folks like yourself though are seemingly happy to see antifa types pepper spraying young women who disagree with you. Violence is fine if the victim has a "Make America Great Again" hat on.
I hope Congress will impeach
That would be both unlike and pretty sad day for our democratic republic. Trump is more inside the
Slashdot Mirror
No he was doing what he does playing word games, which he consistently does in testimony. Youtube any of it. My argument why he should not be believed is that he has a history of misleading the public with issues related to monitoring of communications by American Citizens. https://youtu.be/QwiUVUJmGjs
I am calling him lair because I have pretty strong evidence he has lied before about similar subjects. Its a tautology, Clapper is untrustworthy because he is untrustworthy. He has lied before about this subject, the assumption must be that his testimony can not be considered useful evidence going forward. Which is not say its impossible he is telling the truth now. Liars don't always lie. It is however hard to see what motivation he would have to be honest.
1) He isn't under oath this time so there is no personal risk if caught fibbing
2) His statement sort of exonerates himself and his political pals, maybe its true, but it also happens to be the lie he'd want to tell if it were otherwise
3) Its what everyone expects him to say, so he can expect little push back for people other than Trump and his surrogates, who already have animosity toward him.
No, what he said was "I can deny it". Which isn't actually a denial is it. Its a statement, but a meaningless. I can say the "sky is red," its easy to do, but it does not make for a red sky. Clapper is a SOB that has been caught lying before under oath. He escapes prosecution I think because many politicians are afraid of the deep state.
They told us our phone records were private too unless and until someone got a warrant, turned out that was not exactly the case. We have a secret court FISA, a FUCKING SECRET COURT, for which even after investigation are closed and intelligence actions are completed the records from which remain under seal often for decades! Any truly reasonable interpretation of the Bill of Rights, part of Constitution the highest law of land does not all that shit. The leaks pretty much show the spooks are running basically wild. Its time to go after the three letters and the government can't do because they are scared of their own shadows. Unfortunately that leaves the likes of people who are probably not exactly of great character like Assange to do it.
So here we are with a CIA run by people Trump was insulting thorough his campaign. They participated in the attribution of the compromise of the DNC and foreign political propaganda (Note not election hacking or stealing because lets face it note vote total tampering has been alleged). Now we find them with a whole suite of tools for performing attacks and making it look like a foreign country, like Russia, did it. Can't get your flunky elected because she is to much a scandal ridden bitch half the country hates, do the next best thing undermine the credibility of the guy who does get elected so nobody will work with him, so he can't implement any reforms, and carry on business as usual. Right?
Trump might not have any real credibility but even if that is true he has a much as James Clapper, 0, and as much as any of the other three letters. As big a set back as it would be to our overall preparedness, I really believe nothing sort of a near complete housecleaning can fix this. Like literally dissolve the CIA, and NSA, and stand up a new organization with entirely new people former CIA/NSA workers need not apply and put the whole thing back under the control of the Pentagon inside the primary chain of command where it can be properly administrated and observed.
A lot of jobs don't pay enough to rent a place to live closer to work. How are people "idiots" for taking advantage of a sharp gradient in annual housing costs?
Which is the best argument against housing subsidies and subsidized mass transit. We have these giant city centers where a few mega corps pay salaries that 10 - 20x everything else in the region. You have folks making 20x living there in fancy penthouses, the folks making 15x living in downtown apartments and the folks making 10x trying to take a car into the city. Then you have all the support people making what might be generally considered a prevailing wage who either live in subsidized housing or take subsidized transportation.
Here is the thing though nobody would want to work in a giant office building that does not get cleaned. Nobody wants to live where they can't get a cup of coffee or a bagel made for them, they don't want to live where there is no retail of any kind. Those support workers are *required* The high earners and mega business that occupy our down towns are just corporate welfare recipients. Fast food workers would get $15 an hour downtown if we did away with these subsidies because otherwise there would be no hamburgers for sale downtown because there would be no employees to make them.
One of two things would happen, either downtown would start to suck and companies down there would leave unable to attract talent and go back to the company town model. This still exists look a Breezewood WV, or say Westfield Ohio. The company hires everyone. They outsource nothing, the guy serving burgers in the cafe is a corporate employee, so is the guy mowing the laws. They local bank is the company, so the local hotel, etc. This model works fine. People like, in fact ask anyone who lives there and the love it.
Or Two, bottom end wages will go up substantially which will free the rest of us from tax burden, or allow better services of other kinds, no longer supporting housing and transportation.
Their business is organizing crimes. They make it easy for illegal taxis to find customers.
No their business is aggregating, booking, and billing as a service to private taxis. There isn't anything inherently illegal about that business model. It may or may not even be a reasonable one for someone that wants to work as a livery driver. We shall see if the price supports and market are still there when the VC funny money runs out.
Now its true that Uber does not concern itself about the legality of private unlicensed taxis within the legal jurisdiction of various municipalities. Its not clear to me from a legal standpoint where the liability falls. Is the driver operating the illegal taxi or is uber. Some of that may depend on if uber drivers are determined to be employees or not.
I readily agree that laws should be enforced, and if they can't be enforced changed. The situation uber is creating where we have either a bunch of scofflaw drivers or a scofflaw company unber just getting away with it isn't acceptable. It undermines the rule of law itself.
it works even during rush hour when most people can't get a taxi
I don't buy I was in SF Bay area just a couple weeks ago for a full week. I used cabs all week because Yellow cab made it so damned easy!
I called the first time talked to a person gave them address. Cab was there in less than 5 min. Called back their phone system remembered my previous pickup and destination address. Pressed a couple keys, cab was there in probably 5 min. Did this every day from the airport -> office -> hotel -> office -> hotel ..... -> airport. No probables fast reliable service every time right at rush hour.
because this market cannot price in congestion
The market absolutely could price congestion if we had more private roads.
I agree they should be paid a fair wage, we might disagree what that wage is. I usually tip 20% but I will cut that back to 15%, 10% and in egregious cases none if the services is poor and I think its really that persons fault. I will got to %25 when I feel like I have been given exceptional attention too.
Slow service in a restaurant? I know that probably got as much to do with the kitchen as the wait staff. I won't hold that against them at all. Bring me the wrong order, well you either put in wrong or failed to realize it came from the kitchen wrong and get it fixed before bringing it to the table. That is on you, pal. Ditto if my glass of tea or water is allowed to remain empty. I'll forgive you if the place is packed and you have clearly been assigned to many tables but if that isn't the case well?
I think tipping is a good idea to keep service people honest. The waiter that never allows a patrons glass to sit empty. Takes orders promptly and reliably, is polite and helpful deserve to be rewarded beyond what the other staff get. That is hard for the proprietor to do short of surveying every customer on their way out the door. Letting the customers do that rewarding solves the problem. What we ought to do is go back to the old model of tipping. You set out some amount on the table at the start in small denominations and remove it thru the course of the meal or don't to give constant feedback. If the waiter saw $25 at the start and sees $23 a little later he/she knows you are not thrilled and they'd better shape up or it be only $20 by the time the meal is over.
I think the "sharing economy" is a scam, and (formerly?) middle class people running their cars into the ground operating an illicit taxi service is not "innovative" but an indictment of a dying economy and society eating itself.
I am not sure I don't intuitively agree with you. The scofflaw nature of it makes me pretty uncomfortable. I don't think the government should regulate the livery industry to the degree it does. I have libertarian leans, when it comes to regulation and barriers to entry. I also think the rule of law and the letter of the law should be taken seriously. If 'we the people' don't like the regulations on the industry we need to get the repealed or at least changed, what we should not do is just ignore them. Uber absolutely should be prevented from operating in places where there are laws that prohibit its model. That is true for lots of American cities and more should be done to prosecute them where they are out of compliance.
On the concept of the sharing economy and Uber's fundamental business of being a private taxi broker and aggregator does not seem wrong at face value. Cars are valuable assets and most owners under leverage them. If investors saw a manufacturer leaving industrial equipment idle most of the day they'd probably sue! As far as the economy goes its not the cars that concern me its the drivers. I have been in the car with plenty of Uber drivers that obviously had high levels of education and years of experience industry other than transportation. Uber has actually enhanced the economy putting an often idle asset to work (car), the problem is its put the less valuable asset to work, speaking both as a humanitarian and from a strictly economic point of view.
I don't know about you but I regularly visit clients and will spend a week onsite attending meeting and doing technical work for them. I usually need to go either to or from ${HOTEL} 10 times, while I am in ${CITY} so I want to be able to save the address, yes!
Don't be silly people are upset and rightly so because it is idiotic. "The moon is a harsh mistress" is fiction. Its a great book but like all fiction it has many conceits. In the book the moon is a mostly self sufficient colony. Without that moon residents would not even really have the option of attacking earth.
We can essentially conduct a siege at will by just not sending supplies. If its a send us stuff or else issue they can't really make to much good on the or else, part because of the tremendous amount of infrastructure it takes to send anything to the moon. I rather doubt any of the worlds large nations would have much capability to do so after a nuclear attack of any scale. Suppose they 'hit' a city like say Seattle, its not clearly directly tied to US Space capabilities. But But But... a Hiroshima type event there would trigger a massive credit freeze. It would make the housing crisis of 2k7&8 look like a non event. NASA depending on all kinds of private labor would be hard pressed to get a rocket to the moon. I doubt Space X with its own credit needs would do much better. So until the Moon is near a point where "it does not need us" this is a non starter.
The second major conceit is the moon already possess the technical means to fire the payloads. Using equipment that I suspect must have been built on earth. Its not trivial at all to 'drop rocks on earth from the moon' You have to accelerate a large enough mass to penetrate Earths atmosphere away from the moons gravity. That requires either massive chemical resources or something rail gun like (keep in mind the lunar lander could not get back to earth, most of the mass the returned to earth from the moon landings remained in space!). Its unlike the moon even offers the resources necessary to build such a thing. Its also unlikely we are going to deliver such a device and or even energy to run it there anytime soon.
"The moon is a harsh mistress" repented a complex political and technical situation that existed in a distant imagined future. The real world looks nothing like it, and we'd have lots of lead time to recognize things going in that direction before they got to that point.
It was not written to warn us against moon colonies, it was written to explore political and philosophical arguments. Getting all upset and worrying about attacks for a nascent moon colony today, shows me she was to dumb to understand what she was reading.
So the impairment of yahoo's online assets after two and probably a third massive breach is less than ten percent of the value. This is not actually a very good argument for big investments in security.
Or even just extend the version number field out one extra .X and tell third parties a release driver should always have a value of 1 or greater in the final position, where Microsoft always puts a zero in the final position.
Look I am not going to get drawn into a research project of pointing out specific records handling laws and sub paragraphs for an AC.
Its not the same thing as you calling me a child molester. You're accusation is baseless. In Hillary's case classified documents were found on system they should not be on. That is fact. Now how they got there matters. Did she send them before or after the classification was applied, should she have recognized them as materials that should be classified even if they were no so labeled etc. All that matters as it if she is specifically guilty of violating the law. To say there isn't evidence though is false. It just might not be proof.
To use your example it would be like if there was a kid screaming about how someone just molested them and a whiteness could put me in the general vicinity but could not confirm I was alone with the child. That would be evidence against me, but not proof I did anything wrong. I could not stop people from forming their own conclusions and while I would not like it I would expect and understand some limited action on their part, like not leaving me alone with their kids.
So it is with Hillary, she is a little to connected to a few to many ugly things. So while we don't lock her up, responsible people don't hand her the country to run either.
That means what is "correct" is what the bulk of the speakers actually say.
I would say correctness requires both sending and correctly interpreting the message. If your use of English is such that your audience correctly understands the message with your original meaning and was not distracted by the character of the message itself, so as to drive its content from their minds, it is correct English.
That fact it never went to trial means she was never cleared. Its pretty plain to most people that she most likely violated federal laws for handling classified documents; but because it never went to trial we can't say she was proven guilty. It remains technically speaking an open question.
How serious an infraction it was, and how likely prosecution would have been successful, what the likely sentences could have been are all questions and largely matters of opinion for which you will find different ones offered by many qualified people who have experiences in those matters.
The Clintons were simply party to many scandals over two long a period to be trust worthy. Some of that perception has to do with a concerted partisan effort to to tie them to things, but its also true most of us even most other politicians don't lead such colorful lives.
She was not a good candidate! That should have been obvious to the big money contributors, it should have obvious to the other politicians that were going to have to back her candidacy, and it should have been obvious to the party. Next you have all the evidence that the DNC deliberately scudded the Sanders campaign, a man who did not have all of Clinton's liabilities.
I can think of only two reasons to go forward with HRC in the begging (IE when the RNC field was still 12+ people of varied quality)
1) Usually the incumbent party looses the White House after a two term presidency. So she was always secretly a throw away candidate, it was consider by many to be her turn, and backing her got her out of the way so she would not be around for a 202[04] election they more likely could win.
2) She really had enough friends and dirt on people to force them to cooperate.
I am not making any apology for the left or the protesters. Don't read this that way. I think they are viscous mob opposed to the values that built this nation and make it the greatest on earth.
You have to understand their mindset though, they don't care about opinions and thinking. I and likely you see individualism as being about to explore your own ideas, do you own thing to the extent it allows you to earn a living and lawfully procure the food and shelter you require. You and I probably don't care or seek to control where or in whom they stick their genitals (provided the other party consents), we don't care what clothes they wear etc. We do care that we are permitted to form our own opinion of them.
If someone looks like a girl I am going to use the pronouns and language I am familiar with to talk about them, that is my freedom. To demand otherwise is to oppress me. I might think they are crazy person, I am entitled to that opinion and I should be entitled to act on that opinion when it comes to doing something like deciding to employ them.
They see that as antiindividualistic, in their warped view, you and I must validate and enable their choices or they are being oppressed. This is obviously madness, and if society is allowed to go down the road were everyone is their own little god entitled to a reality all their own, actual reality is certain to come crashing down upon us sooner or later. They don't get that though because their entire lives have been selfish, this is a generation of people who grew up without values. They only know if they scream loud enough they get what they want. It always worked before, so now that they are not getting their way they only know to try an scream louder.
It won't end well for them. The question is are we going to allow them to make it not end well for us too, or are we going to "Make America Great Again" and put a stop to it.
Right, As much as I hate seeing people get hurt I am hopeful this how the left with its us against them identity politics it always engages in finally burns itself out. Hopefully regular will wake up a look around in 2 years and realize that all the damage all the violence came about from left wing protesting and all of them reached their point of justification not from Trump but from supposedly respectable news media, entertainers, politicians and the like.
Trump does some peevish name calling but its almost always directed at an individual and its *usually* based on something they did or failed to do, got poor ratings, gained a bunch of weight, got hacked, etc. That is different than the left were they toss around words like bigot and fascist quite often with no real historical justification at least not in terms of scope, they will outright fabricate claims of bigotry and racism which they will than often level not at individuals but at entire groups; the whole things really translates as "I know you are but what am I".
Hopefully middle America and lots women especially who went Hillary because they bought into the lefts lies about the "war on women" will wake up and see that:
1) They are at least as safe from external and domestic terror threats as before (Albright/Rice/Bush/Obama/Clinton/Kerry) were not foreign policy savants.
2) Their darker skinned friends and neighbors have not been dragged away in the night
3) They still have access to healthcare similar in quality to what they got before
4) Public schools still exist and maybe someone is actually trying to make them better in a meaningful way besides just pumping in more money which has not worked for the last 30 years.
5) Taxes are lower and people have a little more in their pockets
If all that comes to pass hopefully many of the remaining leftists will be removed from the Senate. We can get back to group of well meaning sensible liberals and traditional ( Taft style ) conservatives.
Setting cars on fire, assaulting people, and breaking windows isn't "protesting."
Actually yes it is protesting, what is no longer is peaceful assembly. You therefore enjoy no right to do it.
No he did not. There was no need to issue any stay or injunction against enforcement of the order, while the mater is being resolved. None, you only do that when you strongly believe the legal challenge is going to succeed.
It won't the states don't have standing, in the first place. The president clearly has the legal authority given by congress in the second. This was a political stunt by this judge. He should have dismissed the case because of the standing issue actually. Even if he did think the case could succeed why is the temporary order national? Why not just Washington and Minnesota? This was activism, and he should be removed!
WAIT how does the Constitution clearly say this in unlawful! Citation please or shut the fuck up. I don't believe you, I have read the Constitution. I researched this issue when Khizr Khan was spouting his pro-Hillary lies! There is quire a lot of settled at the SCOTUS level case law on this.
What is different here? I think you are full of shit.
yes well the next thing out of the mouths of people bitching about the immigration orders will be more bitching about the wealth gap. Hint constrict the labor supply than the value of laybor goes up.
Want to get existing US citizens to move to places where the work is, pay a wage that commands their attention.
Hmm list of TBTFs make extra legal argument to try and influence what should be a narrow legal question about the scope of a 1952 immigration act.
It does not matter if you or anyone else things the action is a good idea. What matters is a very simple Question of did the legislation enacted by congress give the president the power to do what he did or not. Washington State and these mega corps are conflating irrelevant issues and trying to get the courts to act outside the law. They don't care about the rule of law. They care about their influence and want to prove theirs is greater than POTUS.
This is ACTUAL fascism folks, what these corporations are doing right here. Judge James Robart ought to be impeached, because he never should have issued a stay on something so impactful when the legal challenge is as weak as it is. I don't care who appointed him or how unanimously he was confirmed. Those things also are not relevant, the only thing that matters is can and will he do his job today and he showed he cant!
I am going toss this out there. The whole reason to use a binary try is for efficient searching. If the tree is so big that you potentially can't search it because of stack space burned in a recursive walk, than a binary tree was probably the wrong choice for a top level data structure anyway.
Really, hmm you have done much research. That isn't surprising, I would not except the sort to call Trump supporters monkeys goes far out of his way to find alternative view points.
Go read the dailywire, or stream.org, or even the weeklystandard. There are lots of articles and lots of comments on those articles by people who are pretty happy Trump is keeping promises he made on the campaign trail. Support his foreign policy both in terms of style and agenda, support his trade policy, see gains being made in the direction of returning to our values of religious freedom.
There are critics on those sites too naturally because no thinking person would agree on everything the president does even if he is 'their guy'.
I didn't read a threat, just a warning to fascists that history hasn't shown positive outcomes for two of the three European examples.
It absolutely was a threat , it was plain call for a military coup, with execution of the current leader as baked into the plan. The left is so concerned about 'causal violence' but they don't apparently listen to the violence implicit in their own rhetoric. Now do I think spouting off on social media and awards shows is likely to lead to a riot or violence, no so it does not meet the standards for which speech can or should be restrained. It was neither a credible threat nor is it likely to provoke action. Kinda like all the stuff people upset with a decade of Obama rule have said. Recall though the left has demanded they be silenced, created safe spaces, and generally advocated for a culture of fear, its their bed and now as a conservative I am more than happy they should lie in it.
I think, really, a sizable number of Trump supporters are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even follow the news, and had little idea of what he was before they voted for him, just looking at him as "Not Clinton."
Interesting I think a sizable number, a large majority actually, of Trump detractors are in denial about what he represents. Many - from experience - don't even watch the news, they watch the Daily Show, read a collection of facebook posts, and unresearched buzz feed blogs and tell themselves how informed they are, they had little idea of who what Trump was before they voted against him (if they bothered to vote at all). They only knew about a few bits he did for entertainment programs and a bunch of context free soundbites.
Those in denial won't recognize the warning, because they don't want to believe that it applies. From their point of view, Trump is just another President. They've never heard of Bannon. On the odd occasion they've heard something worrying about Trump, it's been "balanced" by an exaggeration of something done by "the other side".
I would suggest most of the people worried about Trump are in denial, they don't want to believe what it implies. From their point of view, they are so much smarter than everyone else. Loosing the election implies that might not be true, their certainty of victory right up until election evinces there ability to be very wrong. It suggest their other unexamined but cherished beliefs about how the world works and underlying philosophy might also be counter factual. They can't admit that. So they create daemons like Bannon who has to be one of these terrible racist, sexist, bigots, or homophobes because everyone knows you don't have to listen to those people, but even though nobody listens to them they are still all powerful and wield their secret privilege to control the nation. Never mind that nobody can find actual evidence of Bannon doing anything conventionally thought of as racist, sexist, or homophobic, nope his publication ran some clickbait headlines once upon a time where he wasn't even the by line; but they got his number, he is a scary bigoted Illuminati member!
Will Trump end up hung on meathooks by an angry mob?
No. he won't, just like the right-wing survivalist militia types never actually led any bloody siege on Washing DC dragging the Obama's from the beds under the cover of darkness!
I hope it won't go that far.
I am not sure I believe that in general but I'll take you at your word you personally would not want that. A lot of anti-trump folks like yourself though are seemingly happy to see antifa types pepper spraying young women who disagree with you. Violence is fine if the victim has a "Make America Great Again" hat on.
I hope Congress will impeach
That would be both unlike and pretty sad day for our democratic republic. Trump is more inside the