...Sure. I don't have access to American Federal Government levels of intelligence, so it's even entirely possible that government claims of Al Qaeda's organizational abilities being effectively destroyed are true. It's also possible they're not. I'd rather not be credulous, but at the moment I have no other alternative source of information on the subject.
I've heard of of an asteroid in near earth orbit, filled with oxygen and useful industrial materials. It's apparently called "ISS" which must be some sort of ancient Babylonian goddess or something.
I don't know. That was more an interjection of my opinion having marginally reviewed what was said. I'd be extra careful that that's not just me agreeing with you.
Sorry, that doesn't work, and isn't compatible with his campaigning which is what I was discussing here. He absolutely advocated an end to torture(done) and illegal detainment(blocked) while campaigning, which were definitely the biggest domestic human rights abuses to note.
Oh, boo hoo, Mr. 15-20%. I'm not the 1% and I pay more than you(marginally on the top part of my income, not to be deceitful). I'm literally bawling over your exorbitant taxes.
Which I guess is fine. It's just kind of obnoxious to put things down to 1 dimension like that. There were clearly unresolved core goals in Afghanistan when Obama entered office(like al qeada's leadership structure, which proved to be in Pakistan). Are there still now?
That's upper middle class high "income" earners, who pay out the ass. Plutocrats pay less than you, since their new money for the year is (almost)entirely capital gains.
Seriously if he really felt that we he should have run on "if elected, I will withdraw our forces for Afghanistan" and let the people decide.
But he didn't, and at first left it to military leaders, who he came to doubt. That's exactly the narrative Gates provided here. He should have run on it in 2012, but didn't, because foreign policy apparently stops mattering the moment someone is concerned about the debt.
Well, I can't speak to what people perceived when they voted for Obama in 2008, but I at least recall the content of the McCain Obama debates well enough to remember his general military foreign policy positions at the time: A. Increased use of targeted drone warfare(promise too well kept, good god) B. Out of Iraq(yeah, sorta) C. Refocus Afganistan to be about Al Qaeda(kinda bogus, because "focusing" wars is political BS)
We actually did reduce military funding. Twice even. It's not completely politically untenable like taxes that target the plutocratic class as much as the working and middle classes.
I have a hard time taking what I've read of the criticism online already seriously. Is it really so damning the Obama didn't consider Afganistan "his war", and "wanted to get out"? Or be "skeptical" of the plans put in place by the military leadership?
I mean it sounds like what we heard in the 2000s from the bush administration where enough patriotism and "believing in the troops" was what it took to make a war work. Expecting that from the common person is annoying and immature, but expecting it from the president sounds extraordinarily naive.
The difference that occurred to me: smart users run Adblock. Show the suckers ads, leave the power users to someone else. Coincidentally, this appears to be the Windows 8 strategy too.
Yeah, we agree, and I just like to get that point out any time genetic determinism comes up, because that path leads down a lot of evil roads. That's all.
There are genetic, environmental, genetic, congenital, cultural, and mental factors with different levels of relevance for every single human characteristic. Trying to reduce even the most genetic(like colorblindness) to just one factor is going to get some false positives and false negatives.
Also bologna. There isn't such a thing as bug-spotting super powers. The most reliable way to detect bugs is testing, of multiple stripes, unit testing, regression testing, all the testing(and I'm a developer, so I detest QAs)
It was implicit, not explicit. And your usage shows just how retardly abused the phrase "race card" is. It was meant to be a "get out of jail free" analog when invented by wring-wing political correctness. It has no bearing on every single discussion of race, even if misguided, and you need to drop them damn persecution complex, it makes you seem guilty when you're not.
And the "implicit assumption" came from your phrasing, not your intent: "to poison our children with" if you read that again, without going nuts about how someone dared called dear-little-angel-you a r-r-r-racist you'll not the infinitive construction implies intent, which is fucking racist. Saying something racist(or nationalist or otherwise prejudicial) doesn't make you a member of the KKK, it's just wrong, is all.
So please, take this not as an indictment of your character, but a call to consider the meaning of what you say in the future.
Slashdot Mirror
...Sure. I don't have access to American Federal Government levels of intelligence, so it's even entirely possible that government claims of Al Qaeda's organizational abilities being effectively destroyed are true. It's also possible they're not. I'd rather not be credulous, but at the moment I have no other alternative source of information on the subject.
I've heard of of an asteroid in near earth orbit, filled with oxygen and useful industrial materials. It's apparently called "ISS" which must be some sort of ancient Babylonian goddess or something.
I don't know. That was more an interjection of my opinion having marginally reviewed what was said. I'd be extra careful that that's not just me agreeing with you.
Sorry, that doesn't work, and isn't compatible with his campaigning which is what I was discussing here. He absolutely advocated an end to torture(done) and illegal detainment(blocked) while campaigning, which were definitely the biggest domestic human rights abuses to note.
Oh, boo hoo, Mr. 15-20%. I'm not the 1% and I pay more than you(marginally on the top part of my income, not to be deceitful). I'm literally bawling over your exorbitant taxes.
Which I guess is fine. It's just kind of obnoxious to put things down to 1 dimension like that. There were clearly unresolved core goals in Afghanistan when Obama entered office(like al qeada's leadership structure, which proved to be in Pakistan). Are there still now?
I was an Obama voter who understood this. He was always a less-bad center-right choice. He also wasn't behind gay rights at the time, which was wrong.
That's upper middle class high "income" earners, who pay out the ass. Plutocrats pay less than you, since their new money for the year is (almost)entirely capital gains.
Seriously if he really felt that we he should have run on "if elected, I will withdraw our forces for Afghanistan" and let the people decide.
But he didn't, and at first left it to military leaders, who he came to doubt. That's exactly the narrative Gates provided here. He should have run on it in 2012, but didn't, because foreign policy apparently stops mattering the moment someone is concerned about the debt.
Well, I can't speak to what people perceived when they voted for Obama in 2008, but I at least recall the content of the McCain Obama debates well enough to remember his general military foreign policy positions at the time:
A. Increased use of targeted drone warfare(promise too well kept, good god)
B. Out of Iraq(yeah, sorta)
C. Refocus Afganistan to be about Al Qaeda(kinda bogus, because "focusing" wars is political BS)
We actually did reduce military funding. Twice even. It's not completely politically untenable like taxes that target the plutocratic class as much as the working and middle classes.
My name is Anonymous Coward and I have non-specific cynicism to contribute to the discussion! Look at how helpful I'm being!
I have a hard time taking what I've read of the criticism online already seriously. Is it really so damning the Obama didn't consider Afganistan "his war", and "wanted to get out"? Or be "skeptical" of the plans put in place by the military leadership?
I mean it sounds like what we heard in the 2000s from the bush administration where enough patriotism and "believing in the troops" was what it took to make a war work. Expecting that from the common person is annoying and immature, but expecting it from the president sounds extraordinarily naive.
It should include bogus fonts with randomized data to test for crashes, data validation, and the like, yes.
Reminds me of Windows 8, actually.
The difference that occurred to me: smart users run Adblock. Show the suckers ads, leave the power users to someone else. Coincidentally, this appears to be the Windows 8 strategy too.
Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Sorry for conflating you with a dickbag.
Yeah, we agree, and I just like to get that point out any time genetic determinism comes up, because that path leads down a lot of evil roads. That's all.
oops, that second genetic was supposed to be "epigenetic"
There are genetic, environmental, genetic, congenital, cultural, and mental factors with different levels of relevance for every single human characteristic. Trying to reduce even the most genetic(like colorblindness) to just one factor is going to get some false positives and false negatives.
won't be able to tell you where the security bugs are.
They're laying maggots in the poo that was flung at screen.
Also bologna. There isn't such a thing as bug-spotting super powers. The most reliable way to detect bugs is testing, of multiple stripes, unit testing, regression testing, all the testing(and I'm a developer, so I detest QAs)
It was implicit, not explicit. And your usage shows just how retardly abused the phrase "race card" is. It was meant to be a "get out of jail free" analog when invented by wring-wing political correctness. It has no bearing on every single discussion of race, even if misguided, and you need to drop them damn persecution complex, it makes you seem guilty when you're not.
And the "implicit assumption" came from your phrasing, not your intent: "to poison our children with" if you read that again, without going nuts about how someone dared called dear-little-angel-you a r-r-r-racist you'll not the infinitive construction implies intent, which is fucking racist. Saying something racist(or nationalist or otherwise prejudicial) doesn't make you a member of the KKK, it's just wrong, is all.
So please, take this not as an indictment of your character, but a call to consider the meaning of what you say in the future.
"no project don't actually hit it"
I think I've found a bug in your perlscript.
Root isn't the only kind of vulnerability. Seizing control of peoples' UIs is a pretty big deal(especially as far as phishing or keylogging goes).