We took "Boy's Home Econ" back in the early 70s. I believe it was 8th or 9th grade, and it was an elective. One semester in the kitchen, and another learning to sew (I made a tie, tank top and a robe for dad), and do laundry. Sounds like yours was a bit better than ours, since we didn't have finance. Regardless, this was one of the most worthwhile classes I ever had.
Slightly off-topic,... My wife and I were watching a show that had a young man who had made a diorama. I turned to her and asked if there was a reason we were required to make those in school. She couldn't come up with a good one either. But, let's keep teaching kids things they'll never use.
They were not classified when she dealt with them. Why do you post false information?
A document isn't classified because it's mark as such. It's classified because of the material it contains. Please ask anyone who's ever dealt with it...you clearly haven't. I have.
No, I think there's a high chance that she could win both. But, it depends if/when she gets indicted, and who the Reps put up against her. So, maybe the work "unelectable" was a poor choice. I think there's a high chance that unless the Obama Justice Dept. succumbs to political pressure, they'll be indicting her in the not too distant future. And, that's one thing that could derail her whole campaign depending upon the timing.
Interesting you use Politifact as a source. Compare her score to those of other key candidates. Trump and Cruz score noticeably worse.
SQUIRREL!!!
So, now that I've pointed out your incorrect, you're not going to admit it, just take the distraction tactic. I don't give a flying fuck if those two lie ten times as much. They're not the ones who've broken the law. The question at hand was, is it true..."If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin" And the answer is no, Hillary is a habitual liar. Or does it depend upon what the definition of "is is"?
For the record, I'm not a fan of either of your distraction points, but thanks for playing.
Unfortunately it's not how it works - if the evidence is classified it's hard to release it.
So we're just supposed to trust these Republicans when they claim she did something wrong? That isn't how things work in the US. You are innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence against her, or the Repubicans would have already released it.
It's her old office (you know, the Obama State Dept.) that is slow rolling out the emails. But only because they were forced to. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have seen any of this for decades.
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal. It doesn't matter if the data was leaked or not. What matters is that she knowingly had classified (the lack of markings also doesn't matter...when you know material is of a classified matter, and she claims openly that she does, then you report it and turn it over), and claimed she didn't, and then tried to whitewash the entire matter.
Now her campaign is taking the tactic that it's because the govt. is overclassifying the material. Answer this...how would they know unless they know what's in those 22 emails that nobody has seen. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be lowered from Top Secret to Unclass, and anything about that would be admitting that she had stored classified. And nobody, but nobody, gets to "just get shit done" with that.
As for your misdirection with Trump, yes he's a jackass too. But it's off-topic.
You do realize that she had to have known, right? Any program she had access to, she would have had to have been briefed on. The information is classified even if it's not marked as such...everyone who's ever worked with classified will tell you that. So, for example, if you create a document, email, etc., that has classified information, you're supposed to mark it properly.
So, for the sake of discussion, let's say she didn't know, even though she's said... “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” Then that could only mean a few things...1) she slept through the program briefing, 2) she didn't read the emails, 3) she read the mail, and didn't understand that it was classified...meaning her above statement shows clear lack of understanding, or 4) she's lying about the whole thing to cover her ass. Are there really any other possibilities beyond it being "a vast right wing conspiracy"?
One other detail...even if she never sent, and only received these items, as soon as she became aware that she had classified material, she would have been required to report it, and turn it over...immediately.
the planet and in extension the universe is better off without human.
The problem is that humans compete with other life forms for food, light, warmth, moisture, etc. But computers need none of those things, and do best in a cool, dry, dark environment. So we should migrate our consciousnesses to silicon. AI is not the problem, it is the solution.
True, but they need electricity, cooling, and lack of moisture, etc. Does that make them better, or just a different platform? We don't get replaced as frequently. We have opposable thumbs. And, for you tin-foil hat types, humans are more resistant to government monitoring than computers. Oh, and don't forget computers can't have orgasms!...yet.
... from Tolkien to the latest Superman, the added depth of creating your own languages makes it seem more plausible and real than "booga booga".
Yup, about as plausible as hobbits and kryptonite. I can appreciate the desire to make fiction seem more realistic, but find it interesting how people can get pedantic about it.
The melting pot concept has worked in the U.S. for more than a couple of centuries. The problem we're seeing now is people coming without the expectation of learning English, and adopting our way of life. And, unfortunately, the government in it's political correctness has embraced that. Sure, bring your culture with you, and share in it's richness, but don't expect ours to adopt yours.
Just an anecdote... I grew up in a household with German immigrants. My grandparents spoke German at home, but rarely in public. And, while I learned about my heritage at home, there was never any push on me (except for going to the annual local Octoberfest) to maintain that. We had friends and neighbors who were Italian, Polish, and Vietnamese. While all would cluster with other immigrants of similar heritage, they also immersed themselves in American culture.
And I was under the impression that liberals didn't like stereotyping. Maybe you didn't notice, but there's a bit of a rift in the right. Also, conservative != religious.
Did you really believe the report wouldn't support Big Blue's agenda? And, while I agree with some of your concerns, it's not ll about being "scared". I could easily see a Waze-like app built into our vehicles, maybe warning me of upcoming hazards, construction, icing conditions, etc. But, if the auto companies think I'm going to accept a vehicle that's sending my personal data back to some mother-ship, they won't see a dime of my money.
Slashdot Mirror
By that logic, maybe we shouldn't require history or science. Sheesh. FWIW, I don't disagree with your Happy Meal commentary.
We took "Boy's Home Econ" back in the early 70s. I believe it was 8th or 9th grade, and it was an elective. One semester in the kitchen, and another learning to sew (I made a tie, tank top and a robe for dad), and do laundry. Sounds like yours was a bit better than ours, since we didn't have finance. Regardless, this was one of the most worthwhile classes I ever had.
Slightly off-topic,... My wife and I were watching a show that had a young man who had made a diorama. I turned to her and asked if there was a reason we were required to make those in school. She couldn't come up with a good one either. But, let's keep teaching kids things they'll never use.
I have no doubt that Rove should have done time for his actions. I don't play sides when it comes to this shit.
They were not classified when she dealt with them.
Why do you post false information?
A document isn't classified because it's mark as such. It's classified because of the material it contains. Please ask anyone who's ever dealt with it...you clearly haven't. I have.
No, I think there's a high chance that she could win both. But, it depends if/when she gets indicted, and who the Reps put up against her. So, maybe the work "unelectable" was a poor choice. I think there's a high chance that unless the Obama Justice Dept. succumbs to political pressure, they'll be indicting her in the not too distant future. And, that's one thing that could derail her whole campaign depending upon the timing.
Isn't that what Huma Abedin was for? Two women scorned, working together for a common goals, global domination, and emasculation of the opposite sex.
Interesting you use Politifact as a source. Compare her score to those of other key candidates. Trump and Cruz score noticeably worse.
SQUIRREL!!!
So, now that I've pointed out your incorrect, you're not going to admit it, just take the distraction tactic. I don't give a flying fuck if those two lie ten times as much. They're not the ones who've broken the law. The question at hand was, is it true..."If you actually bothered to look into the DETAILS, usually it's right-wing spin" And the answer is no, Hillary is a habitual liar. Or does it depend upon what the definition of "is is"?
For the record, I'm not a fan of either of your distraction points, but thanks for playing.
And I really don't care. Gov servers had coded back doors being exploited this whole time. So pick your poison
Come on Hillary, if you didn't care, you wouldn't post.
Treason has specific legal meaning...What she did was criminal, but doesn't come close to treason.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Nobody cares!
We do care Hillary.
Clearly, you're one of her campaign workers or we wouldn't be seeing so many AC posts coming to her defense.
They have nothing. If they did, they would have released already.
Hillary? Is that you?
Unfortunately it's not how it works - if the evidence is classified it's hard to release it.
So we're just supposed to trust these Republicans when they claim she did something wrong? That isn't how things work in the US. You are innocent until proven guilty. There is no evidence against her, or the Repubicans would have already released it.
It's her old office (you know, the Obama State Dept.) that is slow rolling out the emails. But only because they were forced to. Otherwise we probably wouldn't have seen any of this for decades.
This is yet another irrational attack by the Republicans.
The statement came from the Obama State Dept. Which Republicans are you referring to there?
She already confirmed they didn't.
And, if the Republicans had the proof they claim, they would have already had her arrested. By not doing so, they're proving they have no evidence.
The Obama Justice Dept. is the one that gets to decide to indict her or not. Thanks for playing.
No, she's unelectable because what she did was criminal. It doesn't matter if the data was leaked or not. What matters is that she knowingly had classified (the lack of markings also doesn't matter...when you know material is of a classified matter, and she claims openly that she does, then you report it and turn it over), and claimed she didn't, and then tried to whitewash the entire matter.
Now her campaign is taking the tactic that it's because the govt. is overclassifying the material. Answer this...how would they know unless they know what's in those 22 emails that nobody has seen. Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be lowered from Top Secret to Unclass, and anything about that would be admitting that she had stored classified. And nobody, but nobody, gets to "just get shit done" with that.
As for your misdirection with Trump, yes he's a jackass too. But it's off-topic.
Okay, let's forgive the Bosnian sniper for the sake of discussion.
I'm sure this was intended as just a cute family fairy tale...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...
As was this...
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
And this was just a bit of hyperbole
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
And we know she was just kidding with
http://www.politifact.com/trut...
I'm sure she just forgot when she said
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/08/...
I could go on for many more lines, but it's late.
You do realize that she had to have known, right? Any program she had access to, she would have had to have been briefed on. The information is classified even if it's not marked as such...everyone who's ever worked with classified will tell you that. So, for example, if you create a document, email, etc., that has classified information, you're supposed to mark it properly.
So, for the sake of discussion, let's say she didn't know, even though she's said...
“I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material. I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.”
Then that could only mean a few things...1) she slept through the program briefing, 2) she didn't read the emails, 3) she read the mail, and didn't understand that it was classified...meaning her above statement shows clear lack of understanding, or 4) she's lying about the whole thing to cover her ass. Are there really any other possibilities beyond it being "a vast right wing conspiracy"?
One other detail...even if she never sent, and only received these items, as soon as she became aware that she had classified material, she would have been required to report it, and turn it over...immediately.
Doesn't that presume that the robots on both sides are equally matched? That would seem very unlikely to me.
the planet and in extension the universe is better off without human.
The problem is that humans compete with other life forms for food, light, warmth, moisture, etc. But computers need none of those things, and do best in a cool, dry, dark environment. So we should migrate our consciousnesses to silicon. AI is not the problem, it is the solution.
True, but they need electricity, cooling, and lack of moisture, etc. Does that make them better, or just a different platform? We don't get replaced as frequently. We have opposable thumbs. And, for you tin-foil hat types, humans are more resistant to government monitoring than computers. Oh, and don't forget computers can't have orgasms!...yet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
... from Tolkien to the latest Superman, the added depth of creating your own languages makes it seem more plausible and real than "booga booga".
Yup, about as plausible as hobbits and kryptonite. I can appreciate the desire to make fiction seem more realistic, but find it interesting how people can get pedantic about it.
The melting pot concept has worked in the U.S. for more than a couple of centuries. The problem we're seeing now is people coming without the expectation of learning English, and adopting our way of life. And, unfortunately, the government in it's political correctness has embraced that. Sure, bring your culture with you, and share in it's richness, but don't expect ours to adopt yours.
Just an anecdote... I grew up in a household with German immigrants. My grandparents spoke German at home, but rarely in public. And, while I learned about my heritage at home, there was never any push on me (except for going to the annual local Octoberfest) to maintain that. We had friends and neighbors who were Italian, Polish, and Vietnamese. While all would cluster with other immigrants of similar heritage, they also immersed themselves in American culture.
And I was under the impression that liberals didn't like stereotyping. Maybe you didn't notice, but there's a bit of a rift in the right. Also, conservative != religious.
Did you really believe the report wouldn't support Big Blue's agenda? And, while I agree with some of your concerns, it's not ll about being "scared". I could easily see a Waze-like app built into our vehicles, maybe warning me of upcoming hazards, construction, icing conditions, etc. But, if the auto companies think I'm going to accept a vehicle that's sending my personal data back to some mother-ship, they won't see a dime of my money.