If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]
None of those servers had classified information (and your third link isn't even about a server, it's about jailbreaking an iphone).
The security level of servers with classified information is significantly higher, exactly to prevent the problems found in your links.
Yeah, last time I went to the doctor, she listened carefully to my self-diagnosis, and what symptoms I had that led me to that diagnosis. Then she gave me warnings about other things to watch for. She was actually great.
No, I don't even know why you think that. Here's a graph.
(Actually, income equality is more equal than wealth equality, because the bottom 20% have zero or negative wealth, because they are in debt. For example, if you have $1000 in the bank, you personally have more than the entire bottom 20% combined. Remember that next time someone tries to lie to you with statistics. Also, poor people often get income from their taxes because of EIC).
Where does this take us? Trump is going to score well in conservative White districts, and Clinton (yes, I like Sanders, but he doesn't have the delegates) is going to score well enough to beat him with less conservative Whites and everyone else. I don't know if enough people would have voted for Clinton without someone who inspires people to vote against him like Trump. But even people who would in another situation never have voted for Clinton will cast votes against Trump. Clinton just got handed the White House.
Maybe: get ready for the Trump pivot. The polls could rock wildly before the election, and Clinton and Trump are already within a margin of error (because general election matchup polls during the primaries aren't accurate).
The only thing I can say for sure is the next few months are going to be wildly entertaining. The only way it could be better is if Sanders had won; Clinton is a bit of a wet blanket.
The people and organizations at the top of the financial foodchain are the ones with the money, why shouldn't they be the ones who are paying to solve problems like homelessness, either directly, or through taxation?
Nah, now you're saying who should pay for it, not how you think it should work. Come on, I'm pretty sure you can think more deeply than that. "Rich people, please fix my problem!!" is kind of how you come across, but I think you can do better.
So the working middle class, who the vast majority of which are just trying to make ends meet every month, are supposed to shoulder the burden of housing and feeding the homeless, instead of the 1% who have 99% of the wealth?
I have no respect for people who are unwilling to help, but want someone else to do the helping. But my point was, it's not clear that a top-down solution can work.
Also, your numbers suck, the 1% doesn't have 99% of the wealth.
Slashdot Mirror
If having an unsecure server is a felony, then just about everybody would be in jail, including the NSA, [vice.com] the director of the CIA [cnn.com], and the largest corporation in the world. [cbsnews.com]
None of those servers had classified information (and your third link isn't even about a server, it's about jailbreaking an iphone).
The security level of servers with classified information is significantly higher, exactly to prevent the problems found in your links.
If hypocrites were disqualified from running for office, we would have no politicians left.
I had a doctor tell me to eat a lot of yogurt once, in order to replenish bacteria after having an antibiotic treatment.
But it does where sane people live. (SoCal isn't sane.)
I don't think sane people exist. We're all a little wired.
If you'd prefer to be alone than with other people
Yeah, but I kind of think that's because of other people, not because of me :)
Maximum Entertainment!
Not drunk, talking about two different issues, wealth (which is known) and disposable income (which I'm guessing at).
I linked to the disposable income.
I'm not talking after-tax income........I'd guess the 1% has 99% of the disposable income
Either you're drunk or........
btw, if you make a typical programmer salary, then you're in the global 1%.
And even if you aren't worried about AGW, the other pollutants from coal (like mercury) make it worth avoiding if possible.
Solar won't do that alone because it's intermittent, but it can definitely play a part.
Yeah, last time I went to the doctor, she listened carefully to my self-diagnosis, and what symptoms I had that led me to that diagnosis. Then she gave me warnings about other things to watch for. She was actually great.
Yes, I really really wish more people would be honest and actually try to look at the numbers (I mean, at least try).
Note that these prices are for solar power plants, not for household solar. Here's a comparison with prices for some other types of electricity generation.
Still solar plants have been popping up all over, and this will only encourage more of them, which is a good thing because coal pollution sucks.
For entertainment purposes, I think Elizabeth Warren would be a good choice.
No, I don't even know why you think that. Here's a graph.
(Actually, income equality is more equal than wealth equality, because the bottom 20% have zero or negative wealth, because they are in debt. For example, if you have $1000 in the bank, you personally have more than the entire bottom 20% combined. Remember that next time someone tries to lie to you with statistics. Also, poor people often get income from their taxes because of EIC).
Meanwhile Ben Carson is still standing in the hallway waiting for the New Hampshire debate to begin.
I give him a 50% chance of becoming Trump's running mate. He looked really comfortable on stage with Trump when he gave him an endorsement.....
hrough to how much of the GOP see Hillary as an extension of Obama and Dem voters staying home because they think they have it in the bag.
That's kind of an interesting thought, because I don't see Hillary to be much like Obama at all.
So.....who will Clinton choose as VP? Elizabeth Warren?
Where does this take us? Trump is going to score well in conservative White districts, and Clinton (yes, I like Sanders, but he doesn't have the delegates) is going to score well enough to beat him with less conservative Whites and everyone else. I don't know if enough people would have voted for Clinton without someone who inspires people to vote against him like Trump. But even people who would in another situation never have voted for Clinton will cast votes against Trump. Clinton just got handed the White House.
Maybe: get ready for the Trump pivot. The polls could rock wildly before the election, and Clinton and Trump are already within a margin of error (because general election matchup polls during the primaries aren't accurate).
The only thing I can say for sure is the next few months are going to be wildly entertaining. The only way it could be better is if Sanders had won; Clinton is a bit of a wet blanket.
So....she got brought on just in time to lay everyone off?
The people and organizations at the top of the financial foodchain are the ones with the money, why shouldn't they be the ones who are paying to solve problems like homelessness, either directly, or through taxation?
Nah, now you're saying who should pay for it, not how you think it should work. Come on, I'm pretty sure you can think more deeply than that. "Rich people, please fix my problem!!" is kind of how you come across, but I think you can do better.
So the working middle class, who the vast majority of which are just trying to make ends meet every month, are supposed to shoulder the burden of housing and feeding the homeless, instead of the 1% who have 99% of the wealth?
I have no respect for people who are unwilling to help, but want someone else to do the helping. But my point was, it's not clear that a top-down solution can work.
Also, your numbers suck, the 1% doesn't have 99% of the wealth.
have you noticed that such things need to be a 'top-down' solution
No.
Small 'ego'.....small you know what.
But sometimes people really are worried about property values, and really do want their children to safely play outside.
Rubber Soul is relevant.