Oh, correcting one point is not contributing, but correcting them all would be? How many points need to be corrected for it to be a valid contribution?
He knows there are 50. That's why he was saying 50 when he was thinking he made it to all 50. Then, he corrected himself, when he remembered he missed 3 and corrected himself to 47 in mid-word, and it came out jumbled.
ATMs around the world work the same. You insert the card. You put in a PIN, you complete your transaction, the card comes back out. The time to transaction is the same whether chip or swipe. The ATM can do either.
Tried it, found the world was quite racist. Go to your white area, call in a burglar next door. Count the time to response. Try the same in the bad part of town.
There are a millon other little things, each dismissed by the racists as "fair." But taken together create a huge barrier for the disadvantaged.
As compared to the president who thought there was 52 states?
Who was that? Obama looked to me to have started to say "all 50" states, but corrected himself down to 47 in mid thought/sentence, and said fifty-uh-seven. And didn't bother to redact his "fifty" before revising the number down to 47.
You were the one calling me wrong. You bought Mazda parts not from a dealer. I bought Mazda parts from a dealer. You objected to me saying that there's a difference between OEM and Genuine. You learned something. That made you angry.
The total time for the transaction doesn't change. What happens is that you have to leave the card in until it's "approved" while with a swipe transaction, you swipe, and put your card away. If you used swipe and PIN, then the total transaction time is identical. You are comparing PIN to sign, and complaining that PIN is longer, but blaming it on the chip.
Why should I call for scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's demonstrable law breaking and lying to stop?
If it's so demonstrable, why has she been under investigation for over 20 years and not a single conviction? The government has wasted millions investigating her and Bill. At some point, the fiscally responsible thing is to move on. But the Republicans are demonstrably not responsible, so more waste we get.
He just got done telling you that they forensically recovered thousands of emails that were public records, which she destroyed. She said she turned over every single such email. So, she was lying.
He just got done telling you that there were over 100 classified emails in dozens of message threads that included classified-at-the-time material, including some clearly marked as top-secret material. Clinton said there was no such material. So, she was lying.
And he just got done telling you that such cases are never prosecuted, and shouldn't be in this case, either. Why should he listen to the points you think matter, when you aren't listening on the points he thinks matter?
The FBI cleared her. Whether she did or didn't mishandle classified information isn't clear. She says no, and nobody has proven otherwise. And no, the excuse that the FBI reports to the president doesn't work, because Congress looked into it as well, and they were Republicans who wanted to bury her, and they couldn't find anything, that's why they did yet another Benghazi, which also didn't find anything.
At some point the Republicans will need to stop wasting taxpayer money investigating her. Though that'll only happen if Trump wins (she'll be so disgraced as to not run again).
And you believe in things you can't know. You believe me an ideologue because someone else accused me of being biased, and I laughed at that assertion, as it didn't even indicate a bias. "You lean politically" That's true of everyone, and has no meaning. "Bias" in a practical sense indicates a specific bias in a specific direction.
And you apply an illogical catch-22. Anyone who is aware of bias can better recognize them (and thus, is less biased) and anyone who denies a bias must be more biased than someone who claims to have one. You sound like the idiots who don't understand Dunning-Kruger. Experts label themselves experts. Idiots over-estimate their skills. So all experts would claim to be, and some idiots would claim to be. So the pool of self-identified experts may contain either. And the idiots here who misuse that, claim that Dunning-Kruger means that anyone who claims to be an expert is obviously an idiot who doesn't know enough to know he's an idiot.
Chips take no longer than swipes (presuming you have a connection). I have no idea what dial-up chip transactions are like, but the terminal time for a transaction is almost the same. So low on the milisecond scale that even over Wal-Mart scale (millions of transactions) it doesn't add up to more than a few seconds.
The free market should fix it. In an ideal world, they'll lose PCI certification, and be unable to take cards. Though the free market wants money more than punishment, so VIsa (the merchant banks, the processors, etc, but the card brand is easier to say) won't care that Wendy's is insecure and will still allow them to take cards.
She entered office under exactly the same rules left by Rove/Cheney. She did almost exactly what they did, and followed their example. The "updated" rules were updated, but also grandfathered, so she wasn't in violation of them, but The Next Guy would be. She was under the same rules as Rove/Cheney, and followed them the same. Well, other than there were 22M confirmed emails from Rove/Cheney that were deleted, violating many FOIA and other laws, and they were never prosecuted. Clinton has indicated she didn't delete any work-related emails, and those who disagree haven't been able to prove that, even when given multiple opportunities to do so.
Reply or not I don't care, you're a worthless debater.
If you didn't care, you'd not have bothered to reply with such a long and impassioned ad hominem. You deny all the media reports, because you "know the *real* truth" even if nobody else believes it or you. I guess you are going for a Jesus complex as well.
when imbeciles start calling someone a Holocaust denier for disagreeing with them
You never "disagreed with" me. I hadn't posted in any threads involving you, until I noticed your causal dismissal of all reports that don't support your opinion. I replied to that, and not anything you'd said on the
"scandal" as covered in TFA. Yet you assume I disagree with you on that matter, without any evidence to support that opinion, because it's easier to separate someone into sides, regardless of the facts.
you're a repugnant and vile self-righteous cunt that shows no common sense or moral clarity
Yes, pure ad hominem, without regard to the topic at hand, or the point I made. That's all you have. Hate. Enjoy it. You'll be eating it alone for a long time.
"pure" libertarianism is very expensive. Lots of pollution by people who can't be made to clean it up. Lots of crime by people who can't be made to perform restitution. Lots of loss to the people and the government. But it's more "pure". Cheap, small-government, libertarianism would tax at gun point and fund Head Start and Libraries, and all that because they are shown to reduce costs elsewhere. There are lots of things that cost money, but save even more. But the purists object to taxing at gunpoint to give it away to the kids, but don't mind taxing at gunpoint to put those kids in jail as adults. The spread of libertarianism is too broad for it to be a useful term.
They broke the implied warranty of merchantability.
When we start implying contracts, there's no limit to the government power. That's not libertarian. That's totalitarian, with nicer clothes.
What's hilarious is that cluefucks like yourself believe that this is a failure of libertarianism when, in fact, it's a failure of big government. We have a regulatory framework in place already that's supposed to find out that Theranos is a fraud before they sell the product, and yet they allowed the product to come to market.
Wouldn't an ineffective government (not an inconsistent one, like we have, but a hypothetical uniformly incompetent one) be the same as libertarian, only with higher costs? Having an oversight that doesn't provide oversight is the same as no oversight, which would be the libertarian solution. So how is this not a failure of libertarianism? Sure, it's also a fail of bureaucracy, but that's a separate matter to discuss, which isn't the topic in this thread.
As usual, your side fails and you try to blame my side.
Always picking sides. It's US vs THEM. That just leaves you alone, and filled with hate. Oh, and you make people hate your side, not understand it.
Someone who breaks the contract has initiated force, and thus the escalation point is legitimately the government. pre-emptive oversight is un-libertarian, but reactive oversight is libertarian-compatible.
Most inventing, as people think of it, is done by people, not companies. Companies file the most patents, as they are using them in a war. A patent isn't innovation. It's an implement of war. Companies want as many as possible, without regard to their usefulness.
Abolition of patents would affect how corporations spend money, but wouldn't affect the general level of advancement. You forget how much is done by universities then sold to a single private company to exploit.
FDA was formed partly because the medical claims, like that smoking was good for you and doctor recommended, were getting so obviously fraudulent that something had to be done. Fake blood tests would have fit in just fine.
You sound like a Holocaust denier. Hitler recovered the German Economy after WWI, and so the world invaded and invented a story of Jew death to cover it up. Anything that disagrees is a fabrication of the Jew-owned media.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, correcting one point is not contributing, but correcting them all would be? How many points need to be corrected for it to be a valid contribution?
He knows there are 50. That's why he was saying 50 when he was thinking he made it to all 50. Then, he corrected himself, when he remembered he missed 3 and corrected himself to 47 in mid-word, and it came out jumbled.
ATMs around the world work the same. You insert the card. You put in a PIN, you complete your transaction, the card comes back out. The time to transaction is the same whether chip or swipe. The ATM can do either.
Tried it, found the world was quite racist. Go to your white area, call in a burglar next door. Count the time to response. Try the same in the bad part of town.
There are a millon other little things, each dismissed by the racists as "fair." But taken together create a huge barrier for the disadvantaged.
As compared to the president who thought there was 52 states?
Who was that? Obama looked to me to have started to say "all 50" states, but corrected himself down to 47 in mid thought/sentence, and said fifty-uh-seven. And didn't bother to redact his "fifty" before revising the number down to 47.
They did not recommend prosecution,
No, they recommended no prosecution, there's a difference.
You were the one calling me wrong. You bought Mazda parts not from a dealer. I bought Mazda parts from a dealer. You objected to me saying that there's a difference between OEM and Genuine. You learned something. That made you angry.
The total time for the transaction doesn't change. What happens is that you have to leave the card in until it's "approved" while with a swipe transaction, you swipe, and put your card away. If you used swipe and PIN, then the total transaction time is identical. You are comparing PIN to sign, and complaining that PIN is longer, but blaming it on the chip.
Why should I call for scrutiny of Hillary Clinton's demonstrable law breaking and lying to stop?
If it's so demonstrable, why has she been under investigation for over 20 years and not a single conviction? The government has wasted millions investigating her and Bill. At some point, the fiscally responsible thing is to move on. But the Republicans are demonstrably not responsible, so more waste we get.
He just got done telling you that they forensically recovered thousands of emails that were public records, which she destroyed. She said she turned over every single such email. So, she was lying.
He just got done telling you that there were over 100 classified emails in dozens of message threads that included classified-at-the-time material, including some clearly marked as top-secret material. Clinton said there was no such material. So, she was lying.
And he just got done telling you that such cases are never prosecuted, and shouldn't be in this case, either. Why should he listen to the points you think matter, when you aren't listening on the points he thinks matter?
I think that was the Colbert joke. When you are so right, everything else looks left, including the middle, and reality.
The FBI cleared her. Whether she did or didn't mishandle classified information isn't clear. She says no, and nobody has proven otherwise. And no, the excuse that the FBI reports to the president doesn't work, because Congress looked into it as well, and they were Republicans who wanted to bury her, and they couldn't find anything, that's why they did yet another Benghazi, which also didn't find anything.
At some point the Republicans will need to stop wasting taxpayer money investigating her. Though that'll only happen if Trump wins (she'll be so disgraced as to not run again).
And you believe in things you can't know. You believe me an ideologue because someone else accused me of being biased, and I laughed at that assertion, as it didn't even indicate a bias. "You lean politically" That's true of everyone, and has no meaning. "Bias" in a practical sense indicates a specific bias in a specific direction.
And you apply an illogical catch-22. Anyone who is aware of bias can better recognize them (and thus, is less biased) and anyone who denies a bias must be more biased than someone who claims to have one. You sound like the idiots who don't understand Dunning-Kruger. Experts label themselves experts. Idiots over-estimate their skills. So all experts would claim to be, and some idiots would claim to be. So the pool of self-identified experts may contain either. And the idiots here who misuse that, claim that Dunning-Kruger means that anyone who claims to be an expert is obviously an idiot who doesn't know enough to know he's an idiot.
Do you not know how to use a dictionary? The "lower" definitions are the least popular/accurate. You should have read #1.:
" 1. A company that produces parts to be sold under another company's brand."
But of course, you refuse to listen, even though you've been told, because you're a fucking moronic ass.
Chips take no longer than swipes (presuming you have a connection). I have no idea what dial-up chip transactions are like, but the terminal time for a transaction is almost the same. So low on the milisecond scale that even over Wal-Mart scale (millions of transactions) it doesn't add up to more than a few seconds.
The free market should fix it. In an ideal world, they'll lose PCI certification, and be unable to take cards. Though the free market wants money more than punishment, so VIsa (the merchant banks, the processors, etc, but the card brand is easier to say) won't care that Wendy's is insecure and will still allow them to take cards.
Has nobody heard of Stephen Colbert?
"And reality has a well-known liberal bias." - Stephen Colbert.
She entered office under exactly the same rules left by Rove/Cheney. She did almost exactly what they did, and followed their example. The "updated" rules were updated, but also grandfathered, so she wasn't in violation of them, but The Next Guy would be. She was under the same rules as Rove/Cheney, and followed them the same. Well, other than there were 22M confirmed emails from Rove/Cheney that were deleted, violating many FOIA and other laws, and they were never prosecuted. Clinton has indicated she didn't delete any work-related emails, and those who disagree haven't been able to prove that, even when given multiple opportunities to do so.
Reply or not I don't care, you're a worthless debater.
If you didn't care, you'd not have bothered to reply with such a long and impassioned ad hominem. You deny all the media reports, because you "know the *real* truth" even if nobody else believes it or you. I guess you are going for a Jesus complex as well.
when imbeciles start calling someone a Holocaust denier for disagreeing with them
You never "disagreed with" me. I hadn't posted in any threads involving you, until I noticed your causal dismissal of all reports that don't support your opinion. I replied to that, and not anything you'd said on the "scandal" as covered in TFA. Yet you assume I disagree with you on that matter, without any evidence to support that opinion, because it's easier to separate someone into sides, regardless of the facts.
you're a repugnant and vile self-righteous cunt that shows no common sense or moral clarity
Yes, pure ad hominem, without regard to the topic at hand, or the point I made. That's all you have. Hate. Enjoy it. You'll be eating it alone for a long time.
Nope. The truly impartial are the cynics. If I hate everyone equally, I'm not biased, but still think both sides are packed with liars.
"pure" libertarianism is very expensive. Lots of pollution by people who can't be made to clean it up. Lots of crime by people who can't be made to perform restitution. Lots of loss to the people and the government. But it's more "pure". Cheap, small-government, libertarianism would tax at gun point and fund Head Start and Libraries, and all that because they are shown to reduce costs elsewhere. There are lots of things that cost money, but save even more. But the purists object to taxing at gunpoint to give it away to the kids, but don't mind taxing at gunpoint to put those kids in jail as adults. The spread of libertarianism is too broad for it to be a useful term.
They broke the implied warranty of merchantability.
When we start implying contracts, there's no limit to the government power. That's not libertarian. That's totalitarian, with nicer clothes.
What's hilarious is that cluefucks like yourself believe that this is a failure of libertarianism when, in fact, it's a failure of big government. We have a regulatory framework in place already that's supposed to find out that Theranos is a fraud before they sell the product, and yet they allowed the product to come to market.
Wouldn't an ineffective government (not an inconsistent one, like we have, but a hypothetical uniformly incompetent one) be the same as libertarian, only with higher costs? Having an oversight that doesn't provide oversight is the same as no oversight, which would be the libertarian solution. So how is this not a failure of libertarianism? Sure, it's also a fail of bureaucracy, but that's a separate matter to discuss, which isn't the topic in this thread.
As usual, your side fails and you try to blame my side.
Always picking sides. It's US vs THEM. That just leaves you alone, and filled with hate. Oh, and you make people hate your side, not understand it.
Someone who breaks the contract has initiated force, and thus the escalation point is legitimately the government. pre-emptive oversight is un-libertarian, but reactive oversight is libertarian-compatible.
Most inventing, as people think of it, is done by people, not companies. Companies file the most patents, as they are using them in a war. A patent isn't innovation. It's an implement of war. Companies want as many as possible, without regard to their usefulness.
Abolition of patents would affect how corporations spend money, but wouldn't affect the general level of advancement. You forget how much is done by universities then sold to a single private company to exploit.
FDA was formed partly because the medical claims, like that smoking was good for you and doctor recommended, were getting so obviously fraudulent that something had to be done. Fake blood tests would have fit in just fine.
You sound like a Holocaust denier. Hitler recovered the German Economy after WWI, and so the world invaded and invented a story of Jew death to cover it up. Anything that disagrees is a fabrication of the Jew-owned media.