No. Much, much better than that. He's high farce entertainment.
And I think the headline is inaccurate, Trump wasn't so much voted in for President, it's that Clinton was rejected. They could have nominated Bozo the Clown and won, but they put a fix in, expecting a coronation.
You certainly can't trust that article in the NYT. Note that they make incorrect and unsupported claims about what questions were asked, then direct quotes which they say were answers. If one listens to the exchange verbatim, it's clear that Trump was talking about databases to track immigrants. He was not "asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out" as claimed, that was manufactured by the NYT. In context it's clear he wasn't focusing his answers on Muslims, but on immigrants - he specifically mentioned the wall he wants to build along the Mexican border, and not even the alt-left has tried to claim he wants that to keep Muslims out.
Nothing he said implied that he supported creating a database specific to Muslims. He was talking about expanding and better managing long existing systems which track people entering/exiting the US. Yes, because some immigrants are Muslim, they should be in the database (same as others). But, because he refused to say that he wouldn't track Muslims, the alt-left fake news says he wants a "Muslim database", says Muslims would be in it based solely on their religion, and implies it would include US citizens.
I get how people can misunderstand things he says - he's not well read, not very articulate, and doesn't have a career politician's ingrained care with words. It gets him in trouble, but it doesn't make him evil.
Your link proves you wrong. Not once did he say anything about a Muslim registry, he was talking about registering and tracking illegal immigrants. The alt-left talking heads, though, could do nothing but manufacture fake news from whole cloth.
It would make more sense to try to establish a precedent with a defendant which had fewer resources. Your argument about "dozens of cases" is a non-sequitur, they just have to pick one to go after first.
Perhaps because in practice being able to carry all your work files with you is useful? You can have a desktop, and store files on a local server sync'd to a laptop, or in "the cloud", but it's harder to manage and makes it slower/more difficult to access.
600,000 may sound like a big number. But consider that the Earth's land surface is 197,000,000 mi^2 (sorry for the imperial units, figure it out). So, roads "shatter" the Earth into average sections of 328 mi^2. Big woopee-doo.
("Shatter?" Unless the claimant can find lots of roads which have created fault lines in the Earth's crust, that's a troll at best, and more likely a deliberate falsification to support an agenda.)
Name an airport which provides those services itself. I'm in networking, and have worked with a few. They contract for WLAN service, and part of the contract is providing some free services to airport customers in exchange for the vendor being able to make money from customers who want Internet access. It's incomparable to cellular carriers in every way.
We're done. I've fully answered your objections, you haven't responded to a single one of mine, but keep trying to ignore them and create new arguments. You obviously have no legitimate arguments, so I see no reason to spend further time with you. Do you work for ATT or VZW?
Fine for "free" users. You get what you pay for, and can't expect any more. But for paid users, this is evil. At the very least, they should maintain all existing links, while forcing new content to change to the new schema.
Makes no difference. It's still not comparable. Name a cell carrier which offers captive data and streaming services (exclusively) for $1, and unlimited Internet service for $30.
The issue is, they're both carriers and service providers. Any bundling of the two gives them the opportunity to shift costs (not only between carrier/service, but also to customers who don't buy those services) to make their services appear cheaper than competitors. If all the unlimited data costs are built into their streaming service price, why should they not price them separately, as I previously suggested? (the answer is obviously because they gain an unfair competitive advantage over those who only provide streaming service, which stifles innovation)
For your analogy to be correct, ATT and VZW would have to offer free services (not something marketed as free which is simply bundled with a paid service). They don't (other than government mandated E911). If they offered their own free streaming service to anyone (not just those already paying for phone/data service), you might have a point. But claiming something is "free" when only offered to paying customers simply means the price has been invisibly shifted elsewhere.
Furthermore, the service they charge for comes with data caps - I haven't seen that for paid WiFi, where you usually pay for time-limited access and which is provider/content neutral (there it is - net neutrality) .
Not if the competitors don't own the network, they can't. To have fair competition, ATT and VZW could offer unlimited one-service streaming for a set price, and let the consumer chose the service they want it applied to. Then, let their own streaming services compete equitably with Netflix, or Amazon, or Hulu, or whatever a customer chooses.
It's fake news to restate it as "a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election", which is a blatantly incorrect and exaggerated statement. What Russia is claimed to have done had no more influence on the election than the advertising both parties did. There was no manipulation of votes, there was no direct altering of the outcome, there aren't even any credible claims for either. If anything, the Russians helped the process by bringing the illicit actions of at least one of the parties to light.
If that's true, shouldn't they have used "an" instead of "a".
Shhh. You're disturbing the narrative. How can they be expected to place blame on others, if they have to accept personal responsibility? It was Comey's fault, anyway. Or maybe the Russkie's. Someone other than them, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
...all the rich buggy-whip makers, of course!
"A company who has refused to follow state and city laws for years is ignoring more laws."
...in a city which itself ignores the law.
"Trump is ... an embarrassment, at best"
No. Much, much better than that. He's high farce entertainment.
And I think the headline is inaccurate, Trump wasn't so much voted in for President, it's that Clinton was rejected. They could have nominated Bozo the Clown and won, but they put a fix in, expecting a coronation.
You certainly can't trust that article in the NYT. Note that they make incorrect and unsupported claims about what questions were asked, then direct quotes which they say were answers. If one listens to the exchange verbatim, it's clear that Trump was talking about databases to track immigrants. He was not "asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out" as claimed, that was manufactured by the NYT. In context it's clear he wasn't focusing his answers on Muslims, but on immigrants - he specifically mentioned the wall he wants to build along the Mexican border, and not even the alt-left has tried to claim he wants that to keep Muslims out.
Nothing he said implied that he supported creating a database specific to Muslims. He was talking about expanding and better managing long existing systems which track people entering/exiting the US. Yes, because some immigrants are Muslim, they should be in the database (same as others). But, because he refused to say that he wouldn't track Muslims, the alt-left fake news says he wants a "Muslim database", says Muslims would be in it based solely on their religion, and implies it would include US citizens.
I get how people can misunderstand things he says - he's not well read, not very articulate, and doesn't have a career politician's ingrained care with words. It gets him in trouble, but it doesn't make him evil.
Your link proves you wrong. Not once did he say anything about a Muslim registry, he was talking about registering and tracking illegal immigrants. The alt-left talking heads, though, could do nothing but manufacture fake news from whole cloth.
It would make more sense to try to establish a precedent with a defendant which had fewer resources. Your argument about "dozens of cases" is a non-sequitur, they just have to pick one to go after first.
R/C paintball gun (aka "marker), loaded with paintballs filled with indelible dye and long lasting stinky stuff (butyric acid?).
Nah. Your parents just dropped you on your head when you were a baby. That explains everything.
Words mean things. You obviously don't know what "it's harder to manage and makes it slower/more difficult" means.
"why are you limiting yourself to a laptop?"
Perhaps because in practice being able to carry all your work files with you is useful? You can have a desktop, and store files on a local server sync'd to a laptop, or in "the cloud", but it's harder to manage and makes it slower/more difficult to access.
If they want to use public airwaves to make money, they're subject to regulation, which limits what they can put in a contract.
"80% of the planet has no roads"
That's a completely idiotic statement. It implies that roads cover 20% of the planet's surface. Nonsense.
600,000 may sound like a big number. But consider that the Earth's land surface is 197,000,000 mi^2 (sorry for the imperial units, figure it out). So, roads "shatter" the Earth into average sections of 328 mi^2. Big woopee-doo.
("Shatter?" Unless the claimant can find lots of roads which have created fault lines in the Earth's crust, that's a troll at best, and more likely a deliberate falsification to support an agenda.)
goatse.cx
Name an airport which provides those services itself. I'm in networking, and have worked with a few. They contract for WLAN service, and part of the contract is providing some free services to airport customers in exchange for the vendor being able to make money from customers who want Internet access. It's incomparable to cellular carriers in every way.
We're done. I've fully answered your objections, you haven't responded to a single one of mine, but keep trying to ignore them and create new arguments. You obviously have no legitimate arguments, so I see no reason to spend further time with you. Do you work for ATT or VZW?
Fine for "free" users. You get what you pay for, and can't expect any more. But for paid users, this is evil. At the very least, they should maintain all existing links, while forcing new content to change to the new schema.
Makes no difference. It's still not comparable. Name a cell carrier which offers captive data and streaming services (exclusively) for $1, and unlimited Internet service for $30.
The issue is, they're both carriers and service providers. Any bundling of the two gives them the opportunity to shift costs (not only between carrier/service, but also to customers who don't buy those services) to make their services appear cheaper than competitors. If all the unlimited data costs are built into their streaming service price, why should they not price them separately, as I previously suggested? (the answer is obviously because they gain an unfair competitive advantage over those who only provide streaming service, which stifles innovation)
For your analogy to be correct, ATT and VZW would have to offer free services (not something marketed as free which is simply bundled with a paid service). They don't (other than government mandated E911). If they offered their own free streaming service to anyone (not just those already paying for phone/data service), you might have a point. But claiming something is "free" when only offered to paying customers simply means the price has been invisibly shifted elsewhere.
Furthermore, the service they charge for comes with data caps - I haven't seen that for paid WiFi, where you usually pay for time-limited access and which is provider/content neutral (there it is - net neutrality) .
Not if the competitors don't own the network, they can't. To have fair competition, ATT and VZW could offer unlimited one-service streaming for a set price, and let the consumer chose the service they want it applied to. Then, let their own streaming services compete equitably with Netflix, or Amazon, or Hulu, or whatever a customer chooses.
It's fake news to restate it as "a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election", which is a blatantly incorrect and exaggerated statement. What Russia is claimed to have done had no more influence on the election than the advertising both parties did. There was no manipulation of votes, there was no direct altering of the outcome, there aren't even any credible claims for either. If anything, the Russians helped the process by bringing the illicit actions of at least one of the parties to light.
" I don't know why anyone never thought of doing that before."
Get your $10 string, right here.
"a foreign country directly altered the outcome of an election"
FAKE NEWS ALERT!
"goddamn...goddamn...goddamn...goddamn"
TLDR; come back when you have something intelligent to say, and know how to use reason rather than crude emphasis.
We do understand that intelligent is a stretch for an AC.
Shhh. You're disturbing the narrative. How can they be expected to place blame on others, if they have to accept personal responsibility? It was Comey's fault, anyway. Or maybe the Russkie's. Someone other than them, anyway.
Which is the cause, and which is the effect? If there's really been so much sell-off of fossil fuel stocks, perhaps this is a good time to buy low!