Autowin? I think the bit "capturing both images and audio of their private conversations" had a lot to do with it. There are a few laws about recording conversations without consent.
It appears that the tacky "black and tan" bit is from the reporter here and not McDonalds. https://www.fastcodesign.com/3... It also appears they do remember history but are making an alt-right ethnic joke or something (what used to just be called being a prick)
"black-and-tan" "Shamrock Shake"? Beyond tacky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans) Those who fail to remember history are destined to really piss some people off - in this case in Ireland. To some people it would be like having a joke of Ronald McDonald in blackface.
While you are at it google "Michael Caputo" who ran the New York primary for Trump and "Once worked on a PR campaign to try to improve Vladimir Putin's image. He's not proud of that today, but he says Mr Putin wasn't such a bad guy back then." It would probably be better all around if Caputo had stayed in Russia instead of coming back to pollute Washington. There are a LOT of connections not just the obvious financial ones.
No I think you would be sadly deluded when what should be a joke that badly fails a reality test is put forward as if it is real. However I do not think you are deluded. I think you are mocking me - not the same thing as a joke at all.
Is this how your mocking goes? "Ha ha - we wasted all that money on the high life for executives and laid off the people who do the repairs - so what are you going to do about it peon - hold a sign?" Did I nail it or did you have something more specific in mind?
Don't attempt to turn my own argument back on me - my entire complaint is that the NRA have done language gymnastics on the second amendment to push their own personal power and pretend it's about them and not a real militia. I'm not attacking you, you're just the victim of being manipulated by experts who have gone as far as treason in the past so will use means that honest men would not consider. Perhaps if I was younger and hadn't seen them assembling this huge pile of bullshit over time I would have been fooled like you have.
It's certainly worked. Would you normally stand up for a traitor who sold weapons to the terrorists that killed over a hundred Marines less than a year earlier? I doubt it. You are standing up for that traitor because he's tricked you into thinking that your rights depend on that traitor when they do not.
Why so quick to find offence over something so incredibly trivial, especially when we both know what you wrote and the quoted text is only a pointer to the real text. Is the actual topic too difficult for you to deal with so now you've decided to play the man and not the ball?
I don't know where you get the idea that it excludes women and anyone over 45
It's in the text of the amendment defining who can join a Militia. Why not try actually reading it instead of taking Oliver North's word for what it in it?
Seriously? You know what is written, I know what is written, and in the very unlikely situation where a third party reads down this far they will have read it as well to get here. Are you really playing to some invisible audience that you think actually gives a shit? We'd have lost them in your sidetrack to misunderstand the 2nd amendment if not before.
Oh, by the way, did you know it's illegal to borrow any funds for the purpose of campaign finance? Not even "illegal from Russian banks" but just illegal period, because of the threat of conflict of interest?
Take it up with Trump not me and try feeding "trump borrow money from russia" into google.
With the greatest possible respect, since I'm sure you are good at something, most children over ten with access to a television in the Apollo era could have told you exactly what I had written.
It appears it wasn't an analogy - you have been asleep! It's well documented and has been reported very widely that Trump borrowed millions in campaign funds from Russian banks - perfectly legal and he didn't try to hide that at all. What is the worry is his attitude to Russia since. Maybe try google? That way you can find it from Fox or wherever and maybe believe it instead of railing at me for providing a dirty commie link to the BBC, Washington Post or New York Times.
This story has been "spun" in all kinds of directions, but when it gets down to it the newest unit was built in 1976 and it's getting increasingly expensive to replace parts piecemeal and keep it running. The lease on the land has come up and the choice was to either pay that new expense on top of the ongoing increasing running costs or give up. A lot of units of that type from that time were designed for a 20 to 25 year life.
No. Not at all. I don't believe the line Oliver North is pushing about all gun ownership being tied to the 2nd Amendment especially since it excludes all women and everyone over 45. If it did then all those gun restrictions on former felons would be unconstitutional, unless of course those former felons are young, over 45 or female. The NRA wasn't pushing that line a few decades back.
You misunderstood and took it as nothing but an empty insult. There are more options than the two of war and total capitulation. The "hyperactive and asleep" is what is called an analogy.
Currently Trump owns millions to Russian banks for his campaign funds and it's starting to look very much like he's not going to pay them back in cash but instead special favors to Putin.
Fair enough then, please point out the errors that I made with those two points. That is far more productive than grumbling and saying I "don't understand". Tell me what I do not understand and what the real answer is. I am an engineer not a rocket scientist so I could be wrong even on something so trivialially simple. Am I? How do you know?
What it says in that Forbes article doesn't refute what I wrote, is not really even on the same topic and is dumbed down to uselessness as expected of Forbes.
Then you should not have attempted to link it with a completely different space junk problem. Your sources of course are factual but have nothing to do with what I wrote.
These satellites in question have a very limited life before they deorbit. They hit enough gas in LEO that they are on the way down in a few years without enough propellant to keep them up to speed.
Slashdot Mirror
Autowin? I think the bit "capturing both images and audio of their private conversations" had a lot to do with it.
There are a few laws about recording conversations without consent.
It appears that the tacky "black and tan" bit is from the reporter here and not McDonalds.
https://www.fastcodesign.com/3...
It also appears they do remember history but are making an alt-right ethnic joke or something (what used to just be called being a prick)
"black-and-tan" "Shamrock Shake"?
Beyond tacky (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans)
Those who fail to remember history are destined to really piss some people off - in this case in Ireland.
To some people it would be like having a joke of Ronald McDonald in blackface.
While you are at it google "Michael Caputo" who ran the New York primary for Trump and "Once worked on a PR campaign to try to improve Vladimir Putin's image. He's not proud of that today, but he says Mr Putin wasn't such a bad guy back then." It would probably be better all around if Caputo had stayed in Russia instead of coming back to pollute Washington.
There are a LOT of connections not just the obvious financial ones.
No I think you would be sadly deluded when what should be a joke that badly fails a reality test is put forward as if it is real.
However I do not think you are deluded. I think you are mocking me - not the same thing as a joke at all.
Is this how your mocking goes?
"Ha ha - we wasted all that money on the high life for executives and laid off the people who do the repairs - so what are you going to do about it peon - hold a sign?"
Did I nail it or did you have something more specific in mind?
Don't attempt to turn my own argument back on me - my entire complaint is that the NRA have done language gymnastics on the second amendment to push their own personal power and pretend it's about them and not a real militia.
I'm not attacking you, you're just the victim of being manipulated by experts who have gone as far as treason in the past so will use means that honest men would not consider. Perhaps if I was younger and hadn't seen them assembling this huge pile of bullshit over time I would have been fooled like you have.
It's certainly worked. Would you normally stand up for a traitor who sold weapons to the terrorists that killed over a hundred Marines less than a year earlier? I doubt it. You are standing up for that traitor because he's tricked you into thinking that your rights depend on that traitor when they do not.
Why so quick to find offence over something so incredibly trivial, especially when we both know what you wrote and the quoted text is only a pointer to the real text. Is the actual topic too difficult for you to deal with so now you've decided to play the man and not the ball?
It kinda helps if you click on the links google comes up with and read the text kid.
These are wonders beyond what we can conceive but the next generation will be able to learn from their four fathers.
Sorry about that Chief.
It's in the text of the amendment defining who can join a Militia.
Why not try actually reading it instead of taking Oliver North's word for what it in it?
Seriously? You know what is written, I know what is written, and in the very unlikely situation where a third party reads down this far they will have read it as well to get here.
Are you really playing to some invisible audience that you think actually gives a shit? We'd have lost them in your sidetrack to misunderstand the 2nd amendment if not before.
Take it up with Trump not me and try feeding "trump borrow money from russia" into google.
There's that "woke" thing again - English - do you speak it?
With the greatest possible respect, since I'm sure you are good at something, most children over ten with access to a television in the Apollo era could have told you exactly what I had written.
It appears it wasn't an analogy - you have been asleep!
It's well documented and has been reported very widely that Trump borrowed millions in campaign funds from Russian banks - perfectly legal and he didn't try to hide that at all. What is the worry is his attitude to Russia since.
Maybe try google? That way you can find it from Fox or wherever and maybe believe it instead of railing at me for providing a dirty commie link to the BBC, Washington Post or New York Times.
Why? Did you see a protest group opposing spillway repair?
This story has been "spun" in all kinds of directions, but when it gets down to it the newest unit was built in 1976 and it's getting increasingly expensive to replace parts piecemeal and keep it running. The lease on the land has come up and the choice was to either pay that new expense on top of the ongoing increasing running costs or give up.
A lot of units of that type from that time were designed for a 20 to 25 year life.
No.
Not at all.
I don't believe the line Oliver North is pushing about all gun ownership being tied to the 2nd Amendment especially since it excludes all women and everyone over 45. If it did then all those gun restrictions on former felons would be unconstitutional, unless of course those former felons are young, over 45 or female.
The NRA wasn't pushing that line a few decades back.
You misunderstood and took it as nothing but an empty insult.
There are more options than the two of war and total capitulation. The "hyperactive and asleep" is what is called an analogy.
Currently Trump owns millions to Russian banks for his campaign funds and it's starting to look very much like he's not going to pay them back in cash but instead special favors to Putin.
I'm talking about Republicans and you refer me to a different political movement?
Fair enough then, please point out the errors that I made with those two points.
That is far more productive than grumbling and saying I "don't understand".
Tell me what I do not understand and what the real answer is.
I am an engineer not a rocket scientist so I could be wrong even on something so trivialially simple. Am I? How do you know?
Read the post by gman003 to lose that certainty (plus still wrong without extra propellant even if it's circular).
What it says in that Forbes article doesn't refute what I wrote, is not really even on the same topic and is dumbed down to uselessness as expected of Forbes.
Then you should not have attempted to link it with a completely different space junk problem.
Your sources of course are factual but have nothing to do with what I wrote.
These satellites in question have a very limited life before they deorbit. They hit enough gas in LEO that they are on the way down in a few years without enough propellant to keep them up to speed.