Not because of this. This would be relatively carbon neutral as you use the carbon removed from the atmosphere as fuel that puts carbon back into the air.
If this became widespread, likely the best we could hope for is enough scale to slow the release of new carbon (carbon that had been in sequestration like fossil fuels).
Russia is not an enemy though. You can call them the enemy but it doesn't make it so. Only congress or the president can define enemies unless in an actual invasion which cyber espionage isn't.
Listen. All the way back to the IRS targeting conservatives and their missing emails the joke was that the NSA could release them. It was the same with Hillary's missing emails, just ask the NSA for them. Now they claim it is Russia doing all the spying so the joke shift to just ask the Russians for it.
I know you are passionate about supporting your side but let's not ignore actual facts in recent history in order to press an agenda that doesn't otherwise survive a cursory investigation into the real meaning.
Give it up. This guy is a through and through shill. The joke used to be that we would just ask the NSA to find the missing emails because they scoop everything up. It was made about the IRS 5 failed harddrives without backups so emails concerning targeting conservative organizations couldn't be turned over to congress. It resurfaced with Hillary and her deleted emails. Now that the story being pushed is that Russia is doing the same to help trump, very little needed changed to make it again.
Make no mistake, It was a joke. But we know from the leaked emails that Hillary and the DNC pay shills to correct people online. We also know blinded partisan hacks will contort anything they can to maintain a fictional worldview. You are trying to reason with one or the other here.
What is the difference between asking the NSA to find Hillary's missing emails and asking the Russians when they are being blamed for a hack and a lot of information being released?
Sometimes -no matter how much different you want it to be - things are as simple as they seem and you have to take people at their own words instead of contorting it into what you want to think.
I don't know what brand it was but back inn the early to mid 80s, we had a TV that was ghosting the immage and the sound would cut out at times. The TV repair guy still actually came to the house back then and I watched him work on it. He replaced two modular boards which was new to me because i was use to the tubes. He said the boards would be fixed back at a shop but was in and out in about 30 minutes complete with running test patterns on the screen and some audio thing for the speakers.
I don't know if that is the same or not. I'm wanting to say it was an RCA tv but it was a console with a 32 inch screen and was more like a piece of furniture than modern sleek TVs that sits on top of furniture.
Could have been part of their in store security or just some bs story he made up. That is why I included how I was told. I have no insight into it other than what he said. The only card readers i have experience with are connected to computers and you sign a printed receipt not a screen or pad. The option to do that was available but most credit cards were put in an online reservation system and you had to sign a rental agreement at check in that allowed them t to charge ffor damages discovered after checkout so the paper was already wasted.
Someone told me that it wasn't the signature that was important, somewhere there is a camera that grabs a picture at some point in the signature process and signing is more or less supposed to ensure you are in a position to be captured by the camera.
I don't know if it is in the card reader itself or somewhere near the register or if it was unique to this one retailer where I was told. I had kids shut a car door on my writing hand and couldn't move my first three fingers for a couple days so I was signing off hand and it looked nothing like a real signature. I just made a squiggly line once and it accepted it then made a comment about it. The clerk who was also a manager at the place told me about the photo thing. He could have just been blowing smoke too but wasn't too concerned. It might be because I'm there regularly on my way to work too.
Your phone was designed for you to be contacted too. You can refuse to answer the phone or hang up or unplug it or whatever. It is no different than the politicians going around knocking on doors when you are not at the public square outside of the effort needed.
None of that is unique to the phone. I can go to your front door and all is the same. Of course you can ignore the door, but you can do the same with the phone. All the phone adds is easr in doing it.
Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.
There is no technical difference between the front door of your home and your phone outside the neccesity to be in a specific location. They are all points of contact in which you can ignore, hang up or slam the door shut, or engage the person trying to contact you. In a sense, outside of being inconvenient at times, it is little different than post mail.
If you told politicians they couldn't knock on your door or send you mail, would they have standing to complain? The bottom line is that if you have a means to be contacted, barring politicians from contacting or attempts, you would violate their first amendment rights. You do not need to sit and listen.
It seems to me that some people want them and some don't. The solution is not a binary one of allowing all or denying all. Just make operators of robocalls register an originating number and allow the customer to block those numbers and allow exceptions.
Part of speech is being able to make it. Blocking robocalls is similar to banning speech in the town square. The phone is specifically designed for people to contact you so you do not have to be in some public place.
So if you do not want robo calls, lobby your state to make a law that all robo calls must register the originating number 24 hours in advance and that telephone providers have to allow customers the option to block them by default if they desire. This now goes from blocking speech in the public square to you intentionally avoiding the public square when said speech is happening.
I don't know about the DNC but I went to watch another party politician speak and "for security reasons" you had to get tickets which were free. Part of that process was supplying a phone number and email since i did it online. That put my name, email, and phone number on their list.
So I didn't exactly sign up for their phone list. I just wanted to hear what a candidate actually had to say verses what the news filters and claims he said.
Listen. I wasn't trying to say she is without fault, I was trying to highlight the similarities of how she is always trying to shoehorn loopholes to do what from a layman's view is a clear violation of the law and contrast that with evil corporations who appear despicable when they do it. Somehow Hillary is admired for this behavior while corporations are vilified. It is sort of the ultimate cognitive dissonance.
Technically, if they cannot charge you, it is technically not chargeable. Sure prosecutors can use their discretion but none has said that was the reason she wasn't prosecuted. Hillary was an investigator for Watergate for crying out loud. Do you think she doesn't calculate and understand the boundaries of the laws standing in her way?
Btw, Was I being too facetious for you? You were right to get in a tizzy trope. It was what I was going for.
If it was sarcasm in response to the deflection of Russia being behind the dnc email hack to favor trump, i don't think it would be either. If he thinks the Russians already have the emails and just need to do a search, it might be. If he wants Russia to hack U.S. infrastructure, it would be.
Well - no he didn't. He invited a foreign power to find something. Any assault or other intention attributed is purely in your mind. It is wishful thinking too as last we heard the server was permanently off line. However, there is already a presumption in the republican camp that the server was already accessed years ago so it is more likely he was suggesting they search through whatever documents they already have.
Either way, anything outside of looking for or finding something is all something the viewer has to read into the statement. I'm certain Russia might take it differently - perhaps even as a joke. It depends on what they read into it.
Because despite all appearances of illegality and wrong doing, she has yet to be charged with something to get in front of a jury in the first place.
Of course that is not good if done by a corporations but a future president it is aces. It instills trust and creates a roll model for future citizens.
Well, they didn't come up with nothing. They came up with patterns of incompetence and knowledge that we (as in Clinton and Obama as well as our intelligence community) knew it was a terrorist attack instead of some protest over a movie the night it happened (before the movie claim). This was illustrated by Hillary's email to Chelsea stating an al qeada stile attack and comments from witnesses and department heads. We know that the decision not to send a rescue team was a political one based on appearances instead of any logistical problems.
That may not mean much to you but it says we acted callously with regard to the safety of our diplomats because of political reasons which shows extreme incompetence to me.
The fact that you keep bringing it up and saying we found nothing is sort of telling. It somewhat says you think the same but feel the need to gloss over it. And the reason there was 9 investigations instead of just one is because the administration (not necessarily Hillary) kept stonewalling and facts were being discovered after the process was winding down including facts revealed by the eventual release of Hillary's email. Or in other words, the administration want it stretched out through multiple sessions of congress for whatever reason. Given what we know, it was likely a shrewd political calculation too.
You should be tired and worn out with all those hoops you are jumping through to maintain that point.
Seriously, do you not understand how convoluted you are trying to get here? Let me simplify it for you. If i said find a pencil that is missin , i don't expect you to break into a house, I don't expect you to mug anyone, i expect you to look around the areas in your control to see if you can find it.
Slashdot Mirror
Not because of this. This would be relatively carbon neutral as you use the carbon removed from the atmosphere as fuel that puts carbon back into the air.
If this became widespread, likely the best we could hope for is enough scale to slow the release of new carbon (carbon that had been in sequestration like fossil fuels).
That may be true but your elected leaders don't think it makes Russia an enemy though. Perhaps one day they might but not as of now.
Russia is not an enemy though. You can call them the enemy but it doesn't make it so. Only congress or the president can define enemies unless in an actual invasion which cyber espionage isn't.
Listen. All the way back to the IRS targeting conservatives and their missing emails the joke was that the NSA could release them. It was the same with Hillary's missing emails, just ask the NSA for them. Now they claim it is Russia doing all the spying so the joke shift to just ask the Russians for it.
I know you are passionate about supporting your side but let's not ignore actual facts in recent history in order to press an agenda that doesn't otherwise survive a cursory investigation into the real meaning.
Give it up. This guy is a through and through shill. The joke used to be that we would just ask the NSA to find the missing emails because they scoop everything up. It was made about the IRS 5 failed harddrives without backups so emails concerning targeting conservative organizations couldn't be turned over to congress. It resurfaced with Hillary and her deleted emails. Now that the story being pushed is that Russia is doing the same to help trump, very little needed changed to make it again.
Make no mistake, It was a joke. But we know from the leaked emails that Hillary and the DNC pay shills to correct people online. We also know blinded partisan hacks will contort anything they can to maintain a fictional worldview. You are trying to reason with one or the other here.
What is the difference between asking the NSA to find Hillary's missing emails and asking the Russians when they are being blamed for a hack and a lot of information being released?
Sometimes -no matter how much different you want it to be - things are as simple as they seem and you have to take people at their own words instead of contorting it into what you want to think.
I don't know what brand it was but back inn the early to mid 80s, we had a TV that was ghosting the immage and the sound would cut out at times. The TV repair guy still actually came to the house back then and I watched him work on it. He replaced two modular boards which was new to me because i was use to the tubes. He said the boards would be fixed back at a shop but was in and out in about 30 minutes complete with running test patterns on the screen and some audio thing for the speakers.
I don't know if that is the same or not. I'm wanting to say it was an RCA tv but it was a console with a 32 inch screen and was more like a piece of furniture than modern sleek TVs that sits on top of furniture.
But the trick was getting them to install it by putting out a package called "DNC hack files complete ".
Could have been part of their in store security or just some bs story he made up. That is why I included how I was told. I have no insight into it other than what he said. The only card readers i have experience with are connected to computers and you sign a printed receipt not a screen or pad. The option to do that was available but most credit cards were put in an online reservation system and you had to sign a rental agreement at check in that allowed them t to charge ffor damages discovered after checkout so the paper was already wasted.
Someone told me that it wasn't the signature that was important, somewhere there is a camera that grabs a picture at some point in the signature process and signing is more or less supposed to ensure you are in a position to be captured by the camera.
I don't know if it is in the card reader itself or somewhere near the register or if it was unique to this one retailer where I was told. I had kids shut a car door on my writing hand and couldn't move my first three fingers for a couple days so I was signing off hand and it looked nothing like a real signature. I just made a squiggly line once and it accepted it then made a comment about it. The clerk who was also a manager at the place told me about the photo thing. He could have just been blowing smoke too but wasn't too concerned. It might be because I'm there regularly on my way to work too.
Your phone was designed for you to be contacted too. You can refuse to answer the phone or hang up or unplug it or whatever. It is no different than the politicians going around knocking on doors when you are not at the public square outside of the effort needed.
None of that is unique to the phone. I can go to your front door and all is the same. Of course you can ignore the door, but you can do the same with the phone. All the phone adds is easr in doing it.
I'm not sure what your point is. You do not have to listen to the speech. Just hang up.
Give it up. You will never win with any argument of logic or fact when they excuse political incompetence with Bush did it. We know for a fact that help wasn't sent for fears of the political fallout but that isn't important. Sitting on your hands and doing nothing while American officials are being killed is somehow justifiably because under different circumstances Bush did it.
There is no technical difference between the front door of your home and your phone outside the neccesity to be in a specific location. They are all points of contact in which you can ignore, hang up or slam the door shut, or engage the person trying to contact you. In a sense, outside of being inconvenient at times, it is little different than post mail.
If you told politicians they couldn't knock on your door or send you mail, would they have standing to complain? The bottom line is that if you have a means to be contacted, barring politicians from contacting or attempts, you would violate their first amendment rights. You do not need to sit and listen.
It seems to me that some people want them and some don't. The solution is not a binary one of allowing all or denying all. Just make operators of robocalls register an originating number and allow the customer to block those numbers and allow exceptions.
Not at all.
Part of speech is being able to make it. Blocking robocalls is similar to banning speech in the town square. The phone is specifically designed for people to contact you so you do not have to be in some public place.
So if you do not want robo calls, lobby your state to make a law that all robo calls must register the originating number 24 hours in advance and that telephone providers have to allow customers the option to block them by default if they desire. This now goes from blocking speech in the public square to you intentionally avoiding the public square when said speech is happening.
I don't know about the DNC but I went to watch another party politician speak and "for security reasons" you had to get tickets which were free. Part of that process was supplying a phone number and email since i did it online. That put my name, email, and phone number on their list.
So I didn't exactly sign up for their phone list. I just wanted to hear what a candidate actually had to say verses what the news filters and claims he said.
... evidence for a partisan jury..
Yep. A technicality for sure.
Listen. I wasn't trying to say she is without fault, I was trying to highlight the similarities of how she is always trying to shoehorn loopholes to do what from a layman's view is a clear violation of the law and contrast that with evil corporations who appear despicable when they do it. Somehow Hillary is admired for this behavior while corporations are vilified. It is sort of the ultimate cognitive dissonance.
Technically, if they cannot charge you, it is technically not chargeable. Sure prosecutors can use their discretion but none has said that was the reason she wasn't prosecuted. Hillary was an investigator for Watergate for crying out loud. Do you think she doesn't calculate and understand the boundaries of the laws standing in her way?
Btw,
Was I being too facetious for you? You were right to get in a tizzy trope. It was what I was going for.
If it was sarcasm in response to the deflection of Russia being behind the dnc email hack to favor trump, i don't think it would be either. If he thinks the Russians already have the emails and just need to do a search, it might be. If he wants Russia to hack U.S. infrastructure, it would be.
He says it was sarcasm.
Well - no he didn't. He invited a foreign power to find something. Any assault or other intention attributed is purely in your mind. It is wishful thinking too as last we heard the server was permanently off line. However, there is already a presumption in the republican camp that the server was already accessed years ago so it is more likely he was suggesting they search through whatever documents they already have.
Either way, anything outside of looking for or finding something is all something the viewer has to read into the statement. I'm certain Russia might take it differently - perhaps even as a joke. It depends on what they read into it.
Because despite all appearances of illegality and wrong doing, she has yet to be charged with something to get in front of a jury in the first place.
Of course that is not good if done by a corporations but a future president it is aces. It instills trust and creates a roll model for future citizens.
Well, they didn't come up with nothing. They came up with patterns of incompetence and knowledge that we (as in Clinton and Obama as well as our intelligence community) knew it was a terrorist attack instead of some protest over a movie the night it happened (before the movie claim). This was illustrated by Hillary's email to Chelsea stating an al qeada stile attack and comments from witnesses and department heads. We know that the decision not to send a rescue team was a political one based on appearances instead of any logistical problems.
That may not mean much to you but it says we acted callously with regard to the safety of our diplomats because of political reasons which shows extreme incompetence to me.
The fact that you keep bringing it up and saying we found nothing is sort of telling. It somewhat says you think the same but feel the need to gloss over it. And the reason there was 9 investigations instead of just one is because the administration (not necessarily Hillary) kept stonewalling and facts were being discovered after the process was winding down including facts revealed by the eventual release of Hillary's email. Or in other words, the administration want it stretched out through multiple sessions of congress for whatever reason. Given what we know, it was likely a shrewd political calculation too.
You should be tired and worn out with all those hoops you are jumping through to maintain that point.
Seriously, do you not understand how convoluted you are trying to get here? Let me simplify it for you. If i said find a pencil that is missin , i don't expect you to break into a house, I don't expect you to mug anyone, i expect you to look around the areas in your control to see if you can find it.
Assuming you know the legally defined charge of treason in the U.S., what exactly did trump do that meets this definition?