Wow, you sure know how to twist the facts. There was no Korean self determination to dismiss. We had just booted the Japanese. And the Korean people loved us. I lived in Korea in the mid-80s to early 90s for six years. I met many veterans of that war, and how Korea was handled...how Japan & and Germany were handled...has turned each of them into international powerhouses, not US colonies.
Your link to the article about Camp Humphrey's doesn't in any way dispute what I stated. 23k troops are NOT at Camp Humphreys, and again, many are not combat troops. That's the sum total of USFK forces. "With 23,468 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US history in Vietnam was tragic, but in no way compares to what occurred in Korea. That's your bias.
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
I hope Iran, Russia, China, and the EU pick up the slack and prosper from trade deals with each other.
How many of those words apply to Iran, Russia and China? DOH!
Iran won with the signing of the deal giving them a planeload of cash, and a guarantee to be a future nuclear regional power. Really, you see that as a good position? No, it was a weak agreement, and at a minimum needed to guarantee they would never get nukes.
Wow, you are really hilarious today, pointing fingers at one side about honesty. As if both sides aren't on par wrt that. And, in the same post, trying to spin the NYT as "neo-conservative"...dude, you're smokin' some good shit there.
Abiding by a crappy deal doesn't mean we shouldn't, at a minimum, push for a better one. If Obama really wanted a deal, he would have got one that would have passed muster a treaty. Not one where we started out with the idea of Iran giving up all hope of nuclear weapons and morphing into one where they will have them...just not for a few years. I don't agree with Trump dumping the deal entirely...he should have gone with the allies and attempted to get it fixed and made into a real treaty.
You may call it an Intel failure, I call it the failure of a political appointee to report the actual intelligence his agency had. There's a difference between the agency failing, and someone appointed over them following an agenda. This is a failure of the appointee...a political, not intel failure IMO.
In September 2002, the Senate Intelligence Committee met with Tenet in a closed-door session. Sen. Bob Graham requested a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. Tenet responded by saying "We've never done a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq" and resisted the request to provide one to Congress. Graham insisted "This is the most important decision that we as members of Congress and that the people of America are likely to make in the foreseeable future. We want to have the best understanding of what it is we're about to get involved with." Tenet refused to do a report on the military or occupation phase, but reluctantly agreed to do a NIE on the weapons of mass destruction. Graham described the Senate Intelligence Committee meeting with Tenet as "the turning point in our attitude towards Tenet and our understanding of how the intelligence community has become so submissive to the desires of the administration. The administration wasn't using intelligence to inform their judgment; they were using intelligence as part of a public relations campaign to justify their judgment."[43]
Congress voted to support the Iraq war based on the NIE Tenet provided in October 2002. However, the bipartisan "Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Prewar Intelligence" released on July 7, 2004, concluded that the key findings in the 2002 NIE either overstated, or were not supported by, the actual intelligence. The Senate report also found the US Intelligence Community to suffer from a "broken corporate culture and poor management" that resulted in a NIE which was completely wrong in almost every respect.
"In the lead up to the Iraq war, our intelligence services were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...."
That was the narrative pushed by our leaders, knowing full well that the IC could not speak out publicly to defend themselves. It's a crutch politicians can use at their whim.
Searching through the wiki link for "war", the only reference appears to be to a highly criticized book, and doesn't appear to support the idea that they hope for a war. If I've missed it, please point to the paragraph, or some other appropriate reference.
Could they? Suppose it was from a member of a protected class? Can they legally distinguish between the types of ads? Similar to the case of the gay couple and the wedding cake, no?
No it's not at all surprising since Google has faced harsh criticism of that redesign, which put everything into a single column. The previous version was much more useful than the current.
I don't think that most people view Siri and Alexa as storefronts, but rather as tools to help them with their schedules, check the weather, and essentially google questions for them. Now, your example of going into a store, I'm fine with, or if I were to say specifically request info from those tools on the new Mac or iPhone, I'd be fine with Apple knowing that I'm interested, and sending more info, But, ideally, I wouldn't want them selling that information to others so that they could target me as well.
I'm sure this will never come to pass, which is why I will never use Siri, or Alexa, or any similar tool w/o the express guarantee from the manufacturer that they're not selling my information. I love the idea of these tools, and would even consider paying some kind of fee for the guarantee. It's become way too creepy what you can find out about people online...even those who've had little to no online presence.
So what would you consider private, personal information? Not being a dick, just trying to see what people are worried about. Is private, personal information the information I have never shared on the Internet or in public? Or is the issue that - rather than having an investigator take a few months to collate all the public information on me by hand - these companies can scape and collate publicly-available data in a matter of a few seconds?
Just my opinion (subject to being convinced otherwise), since you asked... What web sites I visit is nobody else's business. What I share with my "Facebook Friends" (not to everyone) should not be made available for resale. What I share on Facebook (or other forums) openly should clearly be fair game. Siri, Alexa and others shouldn't be allowed to take my words and use them to target advertising for me w/o my express permission.
I could go on and on, but that should give you an idea of where I stand.
What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.
That gives you about as much clout as citizens have over "public servants". The only case where that would matter is when those stockholders happen to own enough shares to actually do anything that the CEO gives a shit about.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you sure know how to twist the facts. There was no Korean self determination to dismiss. We had just booted the Japanese. And the Korean people loved us. I lived in Korea in the mid-80s to early 90s for six years. I met many veterans of that war, and how Korea was handled...how Japan & and Germany were handled...has turned each of them into international powerhouses, not US colonies.
Your link to the article about Camp Humphrey's doesn't in any way dispute what I stated. 23k troops are NOT at Camp Humphreys, and again, many are not combat troops. That's the sum total of USFK forces.
"With 23,468 American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in South Korea" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The US history in Vietnam was tragic, but in no way compares to what occurred in Korea. That's your bias.
Bravo!
Isolationist, nationalist, Islamophobic, anti-immigration, anti-refugee, intolerant of its own people, warmongering, and oligarchical, America's beacon has dimmed and she is doomed.
I hope Iran, Russia, China, and the EU pick up the slack and prosper from trade deals with each other.
How many of those words apply to Iran, Russia and China? DOH!
Iran won with the signing of the deal giving them a planeload of cash, and a guarantee to be a future nuclear regional power. Really, you see that as a good position? No, it was a weak agreement, and at a minimum needed to guarantee they would never get nukes.
Wow, you are really hilarious today, pointing fingers at one side about honesty. As if both sides aren't on par wrt that. And, in the same post, trying to spin the NYT as "neo-conservative"...dude, you're smokin' some good shit there.
Abiding by a crappy deal doesn't mean we shouldn't, at a minimum, push for a better one. If Obama really wanted a deal, he would have got one that would have passed muster a treaty. Not one where we started out with the idea of Iran giving up all hope of nuclear weapons and morphing into one where they will have them...just not for a few years. I don't agree with Trump dumping the deal entirely...he should have gone with the allies and attempted to get it fixed and made into a real treaty.
Following an agreement doesn't make the agreement any less shitty. That said, Trump should have agreed to fixing it, instead of just dropping out.
You may call it an Intel failure, I call it the failure of a political appointee to report the actual intelligence his agency had. There's a difference between the agency failing, and someone appointed over them following an agenda. This is a failure of the appointee...a political, not intel failure IMO.
In September 2002, the Senate Intelligence Committee met with Tenet in a closed-door session. Sen. Bob Graham requested a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq. Tenet responded by saying "We've never done a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq" and resisted the request to provide one to Congress. Graham insisted "This is the most important decision that we as members of Congress and that the people of America are likely to make in the foreseeable future. We want to have the best understanding of what it is we're about to get involved with." Tenet refused to do a report on the military or occupation phase, but reluctantly agreed to do a NIE on the weapons of mass destruction. Graham described the Senate Intelligence Committee meeting with Tenet as "the turning point in our attitude towards Tenet and our understanding of how the intelligence community has become so submissive to the desires of the administration. The administration wasn't using intelligence to inform their judgment; they were using intelligence as part of a public relations campaign to justify their judgment."[43]
Congress voted to support the Iraq war based on the NIE Tenet provided in October 2002. However, the bipartisan "Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Prewar Intelligence" released on July 7, 2004, concluded that the key findings in the 2002 NIE either overstated, or were not supported by, the actual intelligence. The Senate report also found the US Intelligence Community to suffer from a "broken corporate culture and poor management" that resulted in a NIE which was completely wrong in almost every respect.
"In the lead up to the Iraq war, our intelligence services were convinced that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction...."
That was the narrative pushed by our leaders, knowing full well that the IC could not speak out publicly to defend themselves. It's a crutch politicians can use at their whim.
Searching through the wiki link for "war", the only reference appears to be to a highly criticized book, and doesn't appear to support the idea that they hope for a war. If I've missed it, please point to the paragraph, or some other appropriate reference.
Even if you did, that doesn't mean they're hoping for it as a result of a nuke war as the AC lied about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
My 1974 Smith Corona electric works just fine. Now, get off my lawn you juvenile delinquent!
"Are Two Spaces After a Period Better Than One?"
I usually make plenty of space just before her period.
Could they? Suppose it was from a member of a protected class? Can they legally distinguish between the types of ads? Similar to the case of the gay couple and the wedding cake, no?
"A Google News redesign is surprising..."
No it's not at all surprising since Google has faced harsh criticism of that redesign, which put everything into a single column. The previous version was much more useful than the current.
Who the hell modded this tripe up???
Nobody believes you any more."
Nobody believes ACs aren't here trolling the forum on behalf of some nation states.
Besides one block of ip address assigned to China unicom, what other evidence do they have? Is it simply because many targets were political attacks?
What evidence do we have that you're not a Chinese troll?
Welp, another clickbaity content-free crapticle I can safely skip. Thanks, BeauHD!
Sorry, it didn't fit your Chinese agenda?
I don't think that most people view Siri and Alexa as storefronts, but rather as tools to help them with their schedules, check the weather, and essentially google questions for them. Now, your example of going into a store, I'm fine with, or if I were to say specifically request info from those tools on the new Mac or iPhone, I'd be fine with Apple knowing that I'm interested, and sending more info, But, ideally, I wouldn't want them selling that information to others so that they could target me as well.
I'm sure this will never come to pass, which is why I will never use Siri, or Alexa, or any similar tool w/o the express guarantee from the manufacturer that they're not selling my information. I love the idea of these tools, and would even consider paying some kind of fee for the guarantee. It's become way too creepy what you can find out about people online...even those who've had little to no online presence.
So what would you consider private, personal information? Not being a dick, just trying to see what people are worried about. Is private, personal information the information I have never shared on the Internet or in public? Or is the issue that - rather than having an investigator take a few months to collate all the public information on me by hand - these companies can scape and collate publicly-available data in a matter of a few seconds?
Just my opinion (subject to being convinced otherwise), since you asked...
What web sites I visit is nobody else's business.
What I share with my "Facebook Friends" (not to everyone) should not be made available for resale.
What I share on Facebook (or other forums) openly should clearly be fair game.
Siri, Alexa and others shouldn't be allowed to take my words and use them to target advertising for me w/o my express permission.
I could go on and on, but that should give you an idea of where I stand.
What we learned is that Musk has not realized that those stockholders are the owners of the company, not him.
That gives you about as much clout as citizens have over "public servants". The only case where that would matter is when those stockholders happen to own enough shares to actually do anything that the CEO gives a shit about.
2) Low taxes have high costs
Yeah, like an electorate from CA that's fleeing to find them.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...
"If you don't live in California, you wish you lived in California."
I manage people in CA, but don't live there. I've visited frequently over the last ~30 years, and spent about a total of a year of my life in the state. It's a great place to visit, but no fucking way do I want to live there. And clearly, I'm not alone...
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/1...
https://www.nbc26.com/news/nat...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/p...