Changing your behaviour or beliefs is letting terrorists win. The secret is to figure out why a terrorist is terrorising, and tackle their grievances (perceived or otherwise). This is how the Brits severely curtailed the IRA, for example.
For the home of the brave, there seem to be a fantastic amount of scaredy cats in the US.
The guy curtailed the ever-loving shit out of 50 peoples' rights. If he had to use a car, do you think he'd have been as successful? Both the source and the symptoms need addressing at the same time.
Your book means very little, and until the guy's motive is discovered, it's impossible to say whether it's terrorism or not. The guy might have been tripping and thought he was killing aliens for all we know. There is a reason the police engage in investigations and not just cast a cursory glance over a crime scene and decide on the spot what happened.
No, as the registration data from that could be used by Zombie Obama to take everyone's guns! The best way is to give everyone as many guns as they can handle, then some more, and never ask any questions of the owner. Ever. Guns are simply too important!!!
True, but if it's incredibly difficult to get a gun, they won't have one when they want to use one. Look at the difference in numbers of people killed - that tells you the complete story, as opposed to comparing two single events.
Extremism begets extremism. Cutting off avenues for vulnerable people to be swayed by extremism works. It's not about the current extremists, but stopping new ones being formed.
Just turning up to meet the lawyer was illegal, whether they had any information or not. It doesn't matter what happened at the meeting or afterwards - the very act of trying to get the information instead of reporting the offer is illegal. That's it. That's the only piece the wall of text needed to include, and it's damning.
I don't know how you see a Russian-government paid lawyer trying to give information on an opponent in an election as not a foreign country intervening in said election.
Who'd have thought adults believing in sky deities would be fruitful grounds for humour? It's amazing! Don't these people understand that believing in a god because someone told you they exist and because it makes you feel good is the exact same as said god being demonstrated to exist?
The timing seemed to imply it wasn't released because it had to be released, but because if it was released then, it would change something, namely the outcome of the election. It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.
Because of who they liked/followed, the content of their profile, direct messages to known assholes, etc. Twitter is more than just tweeting. Not much more, but more.
No, the definition is using terror to further political aims, or more accurately: the use or threat thereof of violence to politically coerce a people. Terrorism isn't an act, it's a motive.
I think you're confusing the Isle of Wight with the channel islands. The Isle of Wight has the exact same laws and taxes as the rest of Britain, whereas the channel islands do not. You want to try that one again, champ?:)
You've not factored in the cost of the stations yet. And as the comparison was with airlines, we'd better add in the cost of airports, maintenance workers, certification, price of airplanes, and so on. Yes, Hyperloop's infrastructure is expensive, but that's the point - it moves the always-fluctuating running costs into something far more stable. It's also a bit weird comparing a prototype to an established market and declaring it dead, as if we did that all the time we'd still be bashing rocks together running away from the next tribe over.
As for the engineering issues, that should be something to celebrate! It's not like these are insurmountable problems.
If the people willing to discuss science with scientists actually used the scientific method, you'd have a point. As it is, someone vomiting unfounded assertions does not scientific discourse make.
Unless you've been saying that in a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of good standing, it matters naught. As your last sentence demonstrates your respect for the scientific method, you might want to apply it to your own criticism of the findings. To not do so is incredibly hypocritical, and only serves to make you look like someone wishing their conclusions are correct, which I'm sure you're not.
Counting ballots and healthcare are two problems which do scale wonderfully... More people voting means more people who can count ballots, and more people served by a healthcare system means more taxpayers paying for it. Both of these are solved problems elsewhere in the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Changing your behaviour or beliefs is letting terrorists win. The secret is to figure out why a terrorist is terrorising, and tackle their grievances (perceived or otherwise). This is how the Brits severely curtailed the IRA, for example.
For the home of the brave, there seem to be a fantastic amount of scaredy cats in the US.
The guy curtailed the ever-loving shit out of 50 peoples' rights. If he had to use a car, do you think he'd have been as successful? Both the source and the symptoms need addressing at the same time.
Can you name a European country which has banned all guns? Maybe your argument needs some tweaking as at the moment it's a bit all over the place.
Your book means very little, and until the guy's motive is discovered, it's impossible to say whether it's terrorism or not. The guy might have been tripping and thought he was killing aliens for all we know. There is a reason the police engage in investigations and not just cast a cursory glance over a crime scene and decide on the spot what happened.
No, as the registration data from that could be used by Zombie Obama to take everyone's guns! The best way is to give everyone as many guns as they can handle, then some more, and never ask any questions of the owner. Ever. Guns are simply too important!!!
True, but if it's incredibly difficult to get a gun, they won't have one when they want to use one. Look at the difference in numbers of people killed - that tells you the complete story, as opposed to comparing two single events.
Then don't complain when scores of innocent people are murdered.
This is a solar plant which doesn't need subsidies. Why are you so angry about this?
Extremism begets extremism. Cutting off avenues for vulnerable people to be swayed by extremism works. It's not about the current extremists, but stopping new ones being formed.
That's a public health issue.
Just turning up to meet the lawyer was illegal, whether they had any information or not. It doesn't matter what happened at the meeting or afterwards - the very act of trying to get the information instead of reporting the offer is illegal. That's it. That's the only piece the wall of text needed to include, and it's damning.
I don't know how you see a Russian-government paid lawyer trying to give information on an opponent in an election as not a foreign country intervening in said election.
Who'd have thought adults believing in sky deities would be fruitful grounds for humour? It's amazing! Don't these people understand that believing in a god because someone told you they exist and because it makes you feel good is the exact same as said god being demonstrated to exist?
The timing seemed to imply it wasn't released because it had to be released, but because if it was released then, it would change something, namely the outcome of the election. It's not about what he said, but when he chose to say it.
Russian hackers among the bushes, please.
Because of who they liked/followed, the content of their profile, direct messages to known assholes, etc. Twitter is more than just tweeting. Not much more, but more.
No, the definition is using terror to further political aims, or more accurately: the use or threat thereof of violence to politically coerce a people. Terrorism isn't an act, it's a motive.
I think you're confusing the Isle of Wight with the channel islands. The Isle of Wight has the exact same laws and taxes as the rest of Britain, whereas the channel islands do not. You want to try that one again, champ? :)
And that was working at a fraction of the intended final speed. By your logic we'd never have flight as the first aircraft were incredibly shitty.
You've not factored in the cost of the stations yet. And as the comparison was with airlines, we'd better add in the cost of airports, maintenance workers, certification, price of airplanes, and so on. Yes, Hyperloop's infrastructure is expensive, but that's the point - it moves the always-fluctuating running costs into something far more stable. It's also a bit weird comparing a prototype to an established market and declaring it dead, as if we did that all the time we'd still be bashing rocks together running away from the next tribe over.
As for the engineering issues, that should be something to celebrate! It's not like these are insurmountable problems.
If they don't track individual users, that's entirely different.
If the people willing to discuss science with scientists actually used the scientific method, you'd have a point. As it is, someone vomiting unfounded assertions does not scientific discourse make.
Unless you've been saying that in a peer-reviewed paper in a journal of good standing, it matters naught. As your last sentence demonstrates your respect for the scientific method, you might want to apply it to your own criticism of the findings. To not do so is incredibly hypocritical, and only serves to make you look like someone wishing their conclusions are correct, which I'm sure you're not.
Counting ballots and healthcare are two problems which do scale wonderfully... More people voting means more people who can count ballots, and more people served by a healthcare system means more taxpayers paying for it. Both of these are solved problems elsewhere in the world.
It not just scales, it scales incredibly well. It's not as if it has 8.5 million people and the same amount of people capable of reading a ballot.
"We". You're not controlling this.