Only a fool treats carefully selected facts the same as if they were impartially selected,
That isn't what happened here. The DNC looked bad on their own merits. The emails just corroborated things we already knew. Also they were entertaining.
The problem I was referring to was when he turned the attention to Iraq, before finishing up in Afghanistan. To Bush's credit, once things got really bad, he took the necessary steps to turn things around, but arguably he prolonged the conflict by a decade when he ignored it for Iraq.
Another question is whether it was even necessary to conquer Afghanistan, or if we should have just focused on getting Bin Ladin.
Then of course, it's a smaller issue but his diplomacy when he invaded Afghanistan sucked. A little better coordination would have kept our allies happy.
Furthermore, similar evolutions can happen multiple times. For example, a group of sparrows might grow longer beaks, then shorter beaks over time as their available diet changes. Indeed, we know such things have happened in the past to hominids.
The way I figure it, if Trump doesn't start a pre-emptive war, and badly botch a second war, then he's already ahead of the Bush administration. It doesn't take much to be ahead of the Bush administration, and you can be a loud-mouth and still do it. Trump still has time, though........
Yeah that was about to happen. The money for a lawsuit defense wasn't coming out of their retirement fund.
Anyway, that's a stupid way to determine the quality of a lawsuit. It's far more interesting to get into the facts of the case. Do you think by creating a Facebook page, they created a public forum? and if so, what type of public forum? Should the courts create a new type of 'forum' to deal with this situation, or should it be stuck into a category (of forum) they've already created?
In that particular case, I think it was more like the police station didn't want to spend millions on a legal fight they didn't really care about. Even if they ultimately won, that would mean they would get to delete comments off their Facebook page. What a victory.
When you have term limits, then politicians leave and lobbyists stay around. The lobbyists keep getting better at manipulating politicians, but just when the politicians learn to handle it, a new politician comes in.
Now that I've read the article, it looks like the phone searches either were done with consent or with a warrant, and in most cases, a warrant was used. Hard to feel outraged about that.
It is eye-opening to see the nice tools the police have to search through phones, though. A pretty UI, it's more than just grep.
I'm not sure that analysis is correct. The case you linked to (in the indystar) never went to court.
To consider it differently, if you are at a town-hall meeting, and CODEPINK runs in and starts shouting, they can be arrested.
The real question is whether Donald Trump, by having a Twitter feed, has created a public forum or not. Obviously that isn't something the creators of the constitution had thought about when they wrote the amendment, and none of the prior judgements really address the point, so the Supreme Court ruling would be based entirely on the opinions of the members of the court.
I don't know about her office, but some government offices don't allow USB drives or cell phones into the workplace, and such devices can be destroyed if they are brought in.
Shockley had quite a personality. The reason the 'Traitorous Eight' left him was because he was annoying to work for. After his work in the computer world, he went around promoting eugenics. He largely lost credibility in the popular press when someone asked him, "So why aren't your children smart?" and he couldn't answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Only a fool treats carefully selected facts the same as if they were impartially selected,
That isn't what happened here. The DNC looked bad on their own merits. The emails just corroborated things we already knew. Also they were entertaining.
You might mention that Russia has been trying to influence the election, with little success, since the Soviet era.
thanks
The problem I was referring to was when he turned the attention to Iraq, before finishing up in Afghanistan. To Bush's credit, once things got really bad, he took the necessary steps to turn things around, but arguably he prolonged the conflict by a decade when he ignored it for Iraq.
Another question is whether it was even necessary to conquer Afghanistan, or if we should have just focused on getting Bin Ladin.
Then of course, it's a smaller issue but his diplomacy when he invaded Afghanistan sucked. A little better coordination would have kept our allies happy.
then you could then use that as a training data set for a neural net.
No, this shows a lack of understanding of the capabilities of neural networks.
I don't see anywhere that they sequenced the DNA of this jawbone. Did they?
A minor Apple executive timidly mentioned that webRTC was an old standard by now. Tim Cook ordered his gelsacs removed.
Well, that's definitely a better analysis lol
Furthermore, similar evolutions can happen multiple times. For example, a group of sparrows might grow longer beaks, then shorter beaks over time as their available diet changes. Indeed, we know such things have happened in the past to hominids.
They found a jaw bone. Jaw bones aren't very complete evidence, especially given the number of fossils found actually within Africa.
Hey, Bush II only fucked up Iraq.
He messed up really bad in Afghanistan.
The way I figure it, if Trump doesn't start a pre-emptive war, and badly botch a second war, then he's already ahead of the Bush administration. It doesn't take much to be ahead of the Bush administration, and you can be a loud-mouth and still do it. Trump still has time, though........
Yeah that was about to happen. The money for a lawsuit defense wasn't coming out of their retirement fund.
Anyway, that's a stupid way to determine the quality of a lawsuit. It's far more interesting to get into the facts of the case. Do you think by creating a Facebook page, they created a public forum? and if so, what type of public forum? Should the courts create a new type of 'forum' to deal with this situation, or should it be stuck into a category (of forum) they've already created?
If you can't find loopholes in that, you're not very creative.
In that particular case, I think it was more like the police station didn't want to spend millions on a legal fight they didn't really care about. Even if they ultimately won, that would mean they would get to delete comments off their Facebook page. What a victory.
If they're doing it without a warrant, then maybe we have something to worry about.
When you have term limits, then politicians leave and lobbyists stay around. The lobbyists keep getting better at manipulating politicians, but just when the politicians learn to handle it, a new politician comes in.
Now that I've read the article, it looks like the phone searches either were done with consent or with a warrant, and in most cases, a warrant was used. Hard to feel outraged about that.
It is eye-opening to see the nice tools the police have to search through phones, though. A pretty UI, it's more than just grep.
I'm not sure that analysis is correct. The case you linked to (in the indystar) never went to court. To consider it differently, if you are at a town-hall meeting, and CODEPINK runs in and starts shouting, they can be arrested.
The real question is whether Donald Trump, by having a Twitter feed, has created a public forum or not. Obviously that isn't something the creators of the constitution had thought about when they wrote the amendment, and none of the prior judgements really address the point, so the Supreme Court ruling would be based entirely on the opinions of the members of the court.
you clowns are going to elect Howard Stern as President next aren't you?
Do you think he would be worse? I mean, really?
I don't know about her office, but some government offices don't allow USB drives or cell phones into the workplace, and such devices can be destroyed if they are brought in.
Shockley had quite a personality. The reason the 'Traitorous Eight' left him was because he was annoying to work for. After his work in the computer world, he went around promoting eugenics. He largely lost credibility in the popular press when someone asked him, "So why aren't your children smart?" and he couldn't answer.
Check this out and tell me the harassment doesn't start with the CEO
You probably don't need antivirus on Windows, either. In many cases, it's been demonstrably worse than nothing at all.
Maybe the parents should vote for a different school board.