Overpopulation is a problem in China, but Chinese demographics skew old as a result of the one-child policy that started in 1979. That's not a recipe for successful prosecution of a hot war.
You had to go back to 2000 (the last time Democrats tried to steal an election) to find an incident of violence from the right that's not as bad as what we've seen by the left in the last six months? That should tell you all you need to know.
If it does, then we probably need one I hate to say.
Only someone who's completely ignorant of history and current affairs could write something like that. There's no reason to risk that kind of calamity by not respecting the outcome of the election.
Just out of curiosity, why is it you figure they're not all living in tents? I mean, if they're not making enough money to get a place they should all be out there in the field... right?
Heh. I worked at a place that made specialized data processing equipment. We had a shower so people could ride to work, say, or work out during lunch.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
Not really. They only got a portion of the haul. There's no reason to plant a million bucks if you're only going to get $150k back from the government.
This kind of thinking is what got him in trouble. It's not your stuff. It's work for hire, and they own the copyright. If your company were to discover you took software with you (written on their time), and they actually cared, they could have you arrested for theft.
The Trump connection here is lame. For one thing, it's another month and a half before Trump takes office, and this will have blown over by then. For another, it wasn't Trump who was threatening to go to war over cyber attacks - that was Clinton. But beyond that, the US doesn't have some kind of Cyber Mutual Defense treaty with KSA. This is a challenge for the king of that country - the US isn't obligated to do anything.
Again... a ruling by a court says the constitution grants that power to the courts. But it doesn't. You can read thing thing from start to finish and not find any sign of it. Once you start reading "implied" things into document you're off in television preacher land. I know it's not controversial today because that's the way it's been for many years, but in the 19th century it was.
Established... by the court. When you rule that yes, you yourself have this or that power there's always a question of legitimacy. The constitution doesn't grant that power to the courts.
The constitution doesn't give the Chief Justice, or for that matter the judiciary as a whole, any role in determining how that particular clause is applied.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, we haven't seen this since Japan roared past us economically and militarily in the late '80s.
If that were actually happening, I'd agree.
Overpopulation is a problem in China, but Chinese demographics skew old as a result of the one-child policy that started in 1979. That's not a recipe for successful prosecution of a hot war.
You had to go back to 2000 (the last time Democrats tried to steal an election) to find an incident of violence from the right that's not as bad as what we've seen by the left in the last six months? That should tell you all you need to know.
There's no reason for it. We have a lot to lose in the US, and I wish people would stop playing with fire like this.
Didn't need to read farther than that. It's kind of cute when leftists project like that, but it's not worth taking seriously.
Only someone who's completely ignorant of history and current affairs could write something like that. There's no reason to risk that kind of calamity by not respecting the outcome of the election.
Let's hope not. Let's hope the crazy people pushing for this wake up and realize it would result in a civil war.
This is the civil service. Nobody's going to get fired.
I know, right? You always hear about third world countries like the UK not offering their citizens any opportunity for employment.
Just out of curiosity, why is it you figure they're not all living in tents? I mean, if they're not making enough money to get a place they should all be out there in the field... right?
Heh. I worked at a place that made specialized data processing equipment. We had a shower so people could ride to work, say, or work out during lunch.
One of the engineers was living in his car in the parking lot, and at the time this guy had to have been making more than the average household income. I asked him why he didn't get an apartment and he shrugged and said he didn't see any reason to.
If you read the article you'd see that's exactly how they paid informants.
Not really. They only got a portion of the haul. There's no reason to plant a million bucks if you're only going to get $150k back from the government.
So the employees get nothing and the CEO gets to go to charity balls and what not. I would not be happy if I were a shareholder.
Eh... "borrow from"
Don't you normally pay interest on money you loan to people? I don't see any there there.
Pretty much. Without some kind of human intervention on Facebook's part it's really not functionally different than dislike/flag.
I think it's a lot more serious than that if you actually take the code.
This kind of thinking is what got him in trouble. It's not your stuff. It's work for hire, and they own the copyright. If your company were to discover you took software with you (written on their time), and they actually cared, they could have you arrested for theft.
I doubt he graduated.
The Trump connection here is lame. For one thing, it's another month and a half before Trump takes office, and this will have blown over by then. For another, it wasn't Trump who was threatening to go to war over cyber attacks - that was Clinton. But beyond that, the US doesn't have some kind of Cyber Mutual Defense treaty with KSA. This is a challenge for the king of that country - the US isn't obligated to do anything.
Again... a ruling by a court says the constitution grants that power to the courts. But it doesn't. You can read thing thing from start to finish and not find any sign of it. Once you start reading "implied" things into document you're off in television preacher land. I know it's not controversial today because that's the way it's been for many years, but in the 19th century it was.
Established... by the court. When you rule that yes, you yourself have this or that power there's always a question of legitimacy. The constitution doesn't grant that power to the courts.
The constitution doesn't give the Chief Justice, or for that matter the judiciary as a whole, any role in determining how that particular clause is applied.