North Korea could have those things too (Food, Electricity) if they didn't spend their national energy on pissing off the rest of the world. But they do, so they don't.
Yeah, if they lobbed a nuclear device anywhere inside the territory of the United States, there would still be a massive retaliatory strike from one of the Ohio-class submarines that you know is somewhere in the Pacific. Even if they landed one in a subsistence crater from where we nuked ourselves in the 1940s and 1950s at the Nevada Test Site, they still shot a nuclear weapon at us. You don't get to do that, and there's no handicap or 'aww shucks' mentality in that game.
They might not be able to hit us in an optimal way, but we sure as shit can put one with 10x the yield through Lil' Kim's bedroom window in far less flight time. And he knows it.
It was never intended to be delivered anywhere except the island they obliterated with it. It was the USSR doing a major dick wagging effort at a time that the United States was building smaller weapons, because they make more strategic sense.
There's a reason why the US never made a weapon capable of more than 10Mt, and then started working smaller - the launchers and maintenance of such a thing are stupendously costly, and the inverse-cube law shows that you get far less bang than you would if you put 3 450kt warheads in the same general vicinity from a far cheaper, smaller (read: easier to move, hide, or harden), and more reliable weapon.
Trademark law is trumped by the constitution and it's amendments. Free Speech prevails as long as it is within the accepted bounds (not endangering public by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)
Guess what: the legal issue has nothing to do with the likeness of Sanders being depicted next to historical communist leaders. The issue is with the improper use of the trademarked "Bernie" logo.
The imagery is free speech, and any judge worth wearing the robe would say "too fucking bad" to any legal action brought about on that. The trademark infringement, however, may be a legit legal question.
Except that if the campaign denies association with this claim, then the filing attorney has no cause, and the suit will be thrown out. This whole thing is bizarre.
So if they didn't consult with the campaign, does that mean they are without cause? Are they retained in any way by the campaign, or have any standing whatsoever to act on their behalf?
Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ? Or have they just called him a fascist?
There's actual legitimacy to calling him a fascist, and even more in calling him a proto-fascist, because he says proto-fascist things into cameras and microphones on a regular basis. One could define fascism as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
The first part fits Trump's campaign perfectly: "Make America Great Again" and talking about how we don't win anymore, and how every other country is getting over on us, how countries send us all their 'losers' etc. is a de facto obsession with community decline. One could make an argument that deporting 11 million people is a move towards 'purity' and 'unity'. Trump has made many statements where he would like to curtail freedom of speech, and freedom of the press when it comes to the expansion of libel laws, which meets the definition of abandoning democratic liberties.
Basically all that is missing is the militant nationalistic violence and statements of external expansion from Trump himself, but there's plenty of his supporters that are more than willing to sign up for the violence - just see any of the stories lately about the brawls at his rallies.
Note that I am not calling Trump a fascist, or even a proto-fascist: I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to support such claims. That being said, I'm very fearful that we're going to end up with a Trump / Hillary decision in November, where the end result is that the United States will be the loser in such an election.
Europe is perfectly welcome to continue on it's socialist path. We're happy to do our own thing, just like we have been happy to do since 1776. I don't know why everyone always points to Europe as being 'the correct way' when there is definitely a good whack of problems in the Eurozone that they are dealing with too.
And God knows that it hasn't been all that long since Europe had their share of ultra-Conservative nationalistic governments, which only lead to the two biggest wars in history; let up on the rhetoric a bit.
Please reference the statute that says that being a Communist or showing support for Communism is a federal crime.
Hint: you won't be able to, because such a law doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would be thrown out immediately for being unconstitutional, as it would clearly violate the first amendment's right to free assembly.
There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.
Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.
Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.
Yeah, because there are absolutely no Democrats that ever saddle up with big business. No wait, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is exactly that.
1. There is a massively incompetent administrator who scripted a blind delete without testing 2. There is a massively incompetent administrator who left security open enough that someone else could delete multiple customers stuff
I guess they just don't build them like they used to, because 'cloud'.
Yeah, don't really know why people want to compare a combustion engine with a heat engine, and expect the compression 4-cycle suck-stroke-bang-blow to be the same as a heat engine that works on entirely different principles...
Spin up a VM, run your script. If the VM eats itself, you're out of a few minutes of time instead of your entire company and legal jeopardy from your customers.
As for the FBI case, they probably don't care about chain of custody, as the person using the phone is already dead. Nothing from that phone is going to see a court, so they don't have to keep meticulous chain-of-custody for it.
As for other law enforcement agencies using this "service" that is probably a legitimate question.
Slashdot Mirror
North Korea could have those things too (Food, Electricity) if they didn't spend their national energy on pissing off the rest of the world. But they do, so they don't.
Yeah, because clearly artificial light is wasting energy on non-essential things.
Signed,
the 18th century.
Yeah, if they lobbed a nuclear device anywhere inside the territory of the United States, there would still be a massive retaliatory strike from one of the Ohio-class submarines that you know is somewhere in the Pacific. Even if they landed one in a subsistence crater from where we nuked ourselves in the 1940s and 1950s at the Nevada Test Site, they still shot a nuclear weapon at us. You don't get to do that, and there's no handicap or 'aww shucks' mentality in that game.
They might not be able to hit us in an optimal way, but we sure as shit can put one with 10x the yield through Lil' Kim's bedroom window in far less flight time. And he knows it.
It was never intended to be delivered anywhere except the island they obliterated with it. It was the USSR doing a major dick wagging effort at a time that the United States was building smaller weapons, because they make more strategic sense.
There's a reason why the US never made a weapon capable of more than 10Mt, and then started working smaller - the launchers and maintenance of such a thing are stupendously costly, and the inverse-cube law shows that you get far less bang than you would if you put 3 450kt warheads in the same general vicinity from a far cheaper, smaller (read: easier to move, hide, or harden), and more reliable weapon.
Not really surprising that a head of state would ride around in a car with armored windows.
Well, for one thing, the US is still at war with North Korea. We've just been in a nice long cease-fire. No treaty has ever been signed.
Trademark law is trumped by the constitution and it's amendments. Free Speech prevails as long as it is within the accepted bounds (not endangering public by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, etc.)
And it's not ignorant at all to lump in 330 million other people with that guy you replied to.
What is it like to be an arrogant smug asshole?
Guess what: the legal issue has nothing to do with the likeness of Sanders being depicted next to historical communist leaders. The issue is with the improper use of the trademarked "Bernie" logo.
The imagery is free speech, and any judge worth wearing the robe would say "too fucking bad" to any legal action brought about on that. The trademark infringement, however, may be a legit legal question.
Except that if the campaign denies association with this claim, then the filing attorney has no cause, and the suit will be thrown out. This whole thing is bizarre.
So if they didn't consult with the campaign, does that mean they are without cause? Are they retained in any way by the campaign, or have any standing whatsoever to act on their behalf?
Has anyone actually called Trump 'Hitler' ? Or have they just called him a fascist?
There's actual legitimacy to calling him a fascist, and even more in calling him a proto-fascist, because he says proto-fascist things into cameras and microphones on a regular basis. One could define fascism as:
"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion."
The first part fits Trump's campaign perfectly: "Make America Great Again" and talking about how we don't win anymore, and how every other country is getting over on us, how countries send us all their 'losers' etc. is a de facto obsession with community decline. One could make an argument that deporting 11 million people is a move towards 'purity' and 'unity'. Trump has made many statements where he would like to curtail freedom of speech, and freedom of the press when it comes to the expansion of libel laws, which meets the definition of abandoning democratic liberties.
Basically all that is missing is the militant nationalistic violence and statements of external expansion from Trump himself, but there's plenty of his supporters that are more than willing to sign up for the violence - just see any of the stories lately about the brawls at his rallies.
Note that I am not calling Trump a fascist, or even a proto-fascist: I'm simply pointing out that there is evidence to support such claims. That being said, I'm very fearful that we're going to end up with a Trump / Hillary decision in November, where the end result is that the United States will be the loser in such an election.
And you say all that like it's a bad thing.
Europe is perfectly welcome to continue on it's socialist path. We're happy to do our own thing, just like we have been happy to do since 1776. I don't know why everyone always points to Europe as being 'the correct way' when there is definitely a good whack of problems in the Eurozone that they are dealing with too.
And God knows that it hasn't been all that long since Europe had their share of ultra-Conservative nationalistic governments, which only lead to the two biggest wars in history; let up on the rhetoric a bit.
Please reference the statute that says that being a Communist or showing support for Communism is a federal crime.
Hint: you won't be able to, because such a law doesn't exist. And, if it did exist, it would be thrown out immediately for being unconstitutional, as it would clearly violate the first amendment's right to free assembly.
There is absolutely no law banning communism, just like there is no law saying you can't put a white sheet over your head and march down the street with the KKK.
How in the fuck is this scored Insightful?
Yeah, he hasn't said anything misogynistic, except for all the times he has:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
(best video example: https://youtu.be/d32577Hom08)
(other video examples: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...)
Oh, but I'm sure that's all truncated statements, and out of context? As for racism, a lot of his comments about hispanics are at best borderline. But I have a hard time as a white guy telling a hispanic who is legitimately offended by a borderline racist remark that the remark is not racist.
Any way you cut it, this guy is a gaping asshole, and has no business being sworn in as President. It's a job for a serious person.
I would hope so, because it's a shit case. It's clearly political satire / parody, which is free speech.
There have been women Marines for quite some time, and many male Marines are very respectful, if not outright fearful of them.
You don't want to screw around with a WM.
Yeah, because there are absolutely no Democrats that ever saddle up with big business. No wait, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination is exactly that.
I give a shit. Me, right here.
You asked, I answered. Why do I give a shit? Because political speech, and parody, are protected under the first amendment.
I have no idea what the rest of your post is on about, but you might see a doctor about adjusting your medication.
So either of the following happened:
1. There is a massively incompetent administrator who scripted a blind delete without testing
2. There is a massively incompetent administrator who left security open enough that someone else could delete multiple customers stuff
I guess they just don't build them like they used to, because 'cloud'.
well, that's a three stroke. Everyone knows the 4-stroke is suck, stroke, bang, blow.
Yeah, don't really know why people want to compare a combustion engine with a heat engine, and expect the compression 4-cycle suck-stroke-bang-blow to be the same as a heat engine that works on entirely different principles...
The script was deployed via Ansible. He ran it on everything at once.
And everyone knows that blind deletes via automated scripts are a fantastic idea.
Or, how about "test before running EVERYWHERE"
Spin up a VM, run your script. If the VM eats itself, you're out of a few minutes of time instead of your entire company and legal jeopardy from your customers.
As for the FBI case, they probably don't care about chain of custody, as the person using the phone is already dead. Nothing from that phone is going to see a court, so they don't have to keep meticulous chain-of-custody for it.
As for other law enforcement agencies using this "service" that is probably a legitimate question.