Rejecting the AGW hypothesis has never been stated as a reason for rejecting the accords. Forcing US to pay for it while not forcing other nations, which pollute on the same level, to pay for it was the reason given.
If the US is the only country asked to foot the bill for it, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would reject it? I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so. The only reason ever given was that the US was asked to pay for it. You wouldn't expect that those getting paid would reject it.
The moment USSR fell appart and open transactions started happening, everyone who traded with someone could find some connection to Russia. The article shows 4 degrees of separation between Kremlin and FB. There is usually no more than 6 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. Of course, the FB itself probably makes the number of degrees of separation much smaller. So there is probably no more than 5 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. All this shows is how ridiculous the whole Russia conspiracy theory is. RF acts as an aggressive corporate state. While the Left is trying to portray it as some remnant of former Soviet state. There is a lot of corporate interconnections between international corporations and all civilized countries. RF part of G8!!! Does anyone think that having Coke and McDonald's there imply Coke's complicity in stealing elections? Why would anyone going into business with the same people as the ones who operate some other business which finances something in Russia even mean anything? How is this anything but Democrats trying to divert attention from their own criminal actions by claiming something neferious when there is nothing that ever materialized.
Just because QA should automate the test, doesn't mean the same skill set should be used for developing and QAing. Specialize or be bad at everything.
Developers testing their own shit subconsciously avoid the shoddy parts.
Which is why QA shouldn't know which parts to test and which not to test. They should make their own assumptions about how things should work based on how the product is described to the outsiders. Which means they need to be external to the project.
edge cases, schmedge cases. Not doing integration testing when everyone bleeds for their code and is personally invested in thinking that their code can't have a mistake because it's been tested. Oh, that's where the real fun begins.
Those agencies were used as examples of how states already encroach on Fed Gov's rights. They were not the subject of the conversation. For their existence to have any effect on whether the subject of the conversation (which was potential states laws on forcing addtitional privacy rules on ISPs), the existence of those state agencies would have had to set a precedent. If they were never challenged, they don't set a precedent. No one set their existence was illegal. What was said, however, was that, without precedent (which can only be established thourgh a Constitutional challenge), their existence did not automatically diminish FCC's power to assert full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues.
It does matter in determining whether their existence, or their mode of operation, can be used as justification of other additional state power which are otherwise domain of the Federal government. If they have not survived any challege, then their existence does not set any precedent.
I think the gist of their argument is that FCC should be the sole regulator of privacy rules. I don't really understand how states can be undertaking this, btw. This isn't like access to the Internet itself. The moment the server on which private info is stored is physically outside of the jurisdiction, the privacy concerns would have to change. What if the info is stored on different servers in 2 different states? If states can change privacy laws, can counties? Should there be a datacenter in every county? Should there be no off-site backups for the fear of violating a different county's privacy rules?
Only insofar as their regulations only apply intrastate and do not affect any interactions across state lines. I struggle to understand how that could be the case for the Internet providers.
This is not true. Uranium One mines less than 2% of US uranium, so it's not possible tor the sale of that company to have given Russia 20% of US uranium.
It's only 2% today. At the time the deal was signed it was 20% of the produced uranium. And Clinton made her decision based on the 20% number (which was true at the time) rather than a future number (the current levels) that she couldn't possibly know anything about.
No, but the targeted should probably start trying to understand why.
Really? Ok, I'll give it a try. Centuries of antisemitism: Jews were hated because they were too parochial or too cosmopolitan, too rich or too poor, etc. Why? And don't tell me any religious fairy tales from millenia past. None of the Jews alive could had been participants in those acts. So, once again, why the hate? And do you really need to understand why they hate you if they are already out to get you? To what end? To make yourself more suitable to those trying to destroy you?
"Outside of the reach of the regulators" is the train that has left the station long time ago. Many call centers are outside of the legal regime whose constituents they serve. Calling an insurance company about your bill? Well, if your call is manned by someone in another country, it's unregulated. The extent to which it is regulated is also very limited even if it's in another state. You are only protected by Federal laws at that point. You can't rely on state laws to sue for fraud because the person on the other side of the call may have never been in your jurisdiction. As long as there is no easily accessible Federal legal regime to go after call centers, there is not much chance at discovery of fraud. Machines? That's a laugh. We can't access people (to whom we can actually speak).
Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Even the most hardcore Constitutionalists will not argue that regulating the Internet is outside of the domain of the Federal Government.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't be like Trump - if you don't know what the hell you're talking about, stay quiet until you do.
Ditto.
Congratulations! You are a confirmed villain.
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
If you don't "get" Noblesse Oblige, it's because you're a selfish, spoiled, cretin.
Not nearly (not even by a long shot) as much as if you are demanding Noblesse Oblige from others. Those demanding it are the true bona fide villains.
Rejecting the AGW hypothesis has never been stated as a reason for rejecting the accords. Forcing US to pay for it while not forcing other nations, which pollute on the same level, to pay for it was the reason given.
If the US is the only country asked to foot the bill for it, wouldn't it stand to reason that it would reject it? I never heard the reason for its rejection being that AGW is false. No one advocating its rejection said so. The only reason ever given was that the US was asked to pay for it. You wouldn't expect that those getting paid would reject it.
So is vegeterianism. But eating meat is still normal.
Well, if Trust Fund is a separate entity which is not owned by its beneficiary, then it makes sense.
Offshore is a small shithole country that does virtually nothing but run a bank with low taxes, but is recognized as a country.
Sort of like Delaware is recognized as a state?
The moment USSR fell appart and open transactions started happening, everyone who traded with someone could find some connection to Russia. The article shows 4 degrees of separation between Kremlin and FB. There is usually no more than 6 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. Of course, the FB itself probably makes the number of degrees of separation much smaller. So there is probably no more than 5 degrees of separation between any 2 americans. All this shows is how ridiculous the whole Russia conspiracy theory is. RF acts as an aggressive corporate state. While the Left is trying to portray it as some remnant of former Soviet state. There is a lot of corporate interconnections between international corporations and all civilized countries. RF part of G8!!! Does anyone think that having Coke and McDonald's there imply Coke's complicity in stealing elections? Why would anyone going into business with the same people as the ones who operate some other business which finances something in Russia even mean anything? How is this anything but Democrats trying to divert attention from their own criminal actions by claiming something neferious when there is nothing that ever materialized.
EVERYONE on your team should be a developer.
Just because QA should automate the test, doesn't mean the same skill set should be used for developing and QAing. Specialize or be bad at everything.
Developers testing their own shit subconsciously avoid the shoddy parts.
Which is why QA shouldn't know which parts to test and which not to test. They should make their own assumptions about how things should work based on how the product is described to the outsiders. Which means they need to be external to the project.
edge cases, schmedge cases. Not doing integration testing when everyone bleeds for their code and is personally invested in thinking that their code can't have a mistake because it's been tested. Oh, that's where the real fun begins.
Also known as "why do we need testers if we already have customers?"
Those agencies were used as examples of how states already encroach on Fed Gov's rights. They were not the subject of the conversation. For their existence to have any effect on whether the subject of the conversation (which was potential states laws on forcing addtitional privacy rules on ISPs), the existence of those state agencies would have had to set a precedent. If they were never challenged, they don't set a precedent. No one set their existence was illegal. What was said, however, was that, without precedent (which can only be established thourgh a Constitutional challenge), their existence did not automatically diminish FCC's power to assert full right to be central deciding authority on privacy issues.
If no party has challenged them, then they don't set any precedent for expanding state powers to the point where they may encroach on Federal powers.
They're currently law, so that doesn't matter.
It does matter in determining whether their existence, or their mode of operation, can be used as justification of other additional state power which are otherwise domain of the Federal government. If they have not survived any challege, then their existence does not set any precedent.
That was before the sale of Uranium One to a Russian company.
Do you have a not-journalist citation or did you just make it up?
Have they both survived challenges to constitutionality on the federal level?
I think the gist of their argument is that FCC should be the sole regulator of privacy rules. I don't really understand how states can be undertaking this, btw. This isn't like access to the Internet itself. The moment the server on which private info is stored is physically outside of the jurisdiction, the privacy concerns would have to change. What if the info is stored on different servers in 2 different states? If states can change privacy laws, can counties? Should there be a datacenter in every county? Should there be no off-site backups for the fear of violating a different county's privacy rules?
Only insofar as their regulations only apply intrastate and do not affect any interactions across state lines. I struggle to understand how that could be the case for the Internet providers.
You have to start getting your news from outside the right-wing echo chamber.
Oh, and if the "echochamber" is so wrong, then you shouldn't have to use falsehoods to debunk it.
1) Clinton wasn't involved in the decision,
False and irrelevant to the fact that it was 20% rather than the 2% that it has become today.
2) and none of the uranium ever left the country.
False. It part of it went to Canada and cannot be tracked after that.
This is not true. Uranium One mines less than 2% of US uranium, so it's not possible tor the sale of that company to have given Russia 20% of US uranium.
It's only 2% today. At the time the deal was signed it was 20% of the produced uranium. And Clinton made her decision based on the 20% number (which was true at the time) rather than a future number (the current levels) that she couldn't possibly know anything about.
No, but the targeted should probably start trying to understand why.
Really? Ok, I'll give it a try. Centuries of antisemitism: Jews were hated because they were too parochial or too cosmopolitan, too rich or too poor, etc. Why? And don't tell me any religious fairy tales from millenia past. None of the Jews alive could had been participants in those acts. So, once again, why the hate? And do you really need to understand why they hate you if they are already out to get you? To what end? To make yourself more suitable to those trying to destroy you?
"Outside of the reach of the regulators" is the train that has left the station long time ago. Many call centers are outside of the legal regime whose constituents they serve. Calling an insurance company about your bill? Well, if your call is manned by someone in another country, it's unregulated. The extent to which it is regulated is also very limited even if it's in another state. You are only protected by Federal laws at that point. You can't rely on state laws to sue for fraud because the person on the other side of the call may have never been in your jurisdiction. As long as there is no easily accessible Federal legal regime to go after call centers, there is not much chance at discovery of fraud. Machines? That's a laugh. We can't access people (to whom we can actually speak).
Regulating interstate commerce is an enumerated power. Even the most hardcore Constitutionalists will not argue that regulating the Internet is outside of the domain of the Federal Government.