The average person in America is so brainwashed, they still believe this is the Land of the Free. The fact that we have the highest incarceration rate is irrelevant because those incarcerated people are criminals.
I think he have a daughter but I highly doubt she would like to follow him so probably his next best hunchback will be the anointed.
I don't see his daughter as being in the game either. He just answered that question in a Q&A session. He answered that people want leaders to choose a successor, but in the end, it's up to the people. https://www.usnews.com/news/wo... “the successor to the president is determined only by the Russian people in the course of democratic elections, and no one else.” https://www.rt.com/politics/39... It's revealing to compare the two reports of the same event.
Putin has an estimated net worth of 200 billion with all the money he's squirreled away...
That actually is a classic example of fake news. Hermitage Capital Management Founder Bill Browder called him the "Richest man in the world" when speaking to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and all of the Time Warner etc. media carried articles amplifying the statement. Usually, they said Bezos and Gates together didn't come close to Putin's wealth. Nonetheless, the Forbes most recent list of richest in the world https://goo.gl/NvqgGk puts Gates in the top slot. The trick is that Putin's wealth is secret!
Russia has things worthy of criticism. The soon-to-take-effect VPN ban is a good one. But Putin being super, super rich is just BS.
Since the bigger security threat comes from inside America rather than out, Kaspersky is probably safer than 3rd party American anti-malware. The NSA has easy access to the local companies and can influence them. The NSA can't so easily influence Kaspersky to do its bidding.
This has got to be the dumbest tempest in a teapot ever conceived. The funny thing is that it's based on projection - it's the sort of short-term idiocy that American politicians and bureaucrats endlessly engage in. Putin may be a cold, ultranationalistic tyrant, but he's an extremely smart cold, ultranationalistic tyrant who is going to be in power for either as long as he wants to be or until somebody assassinates him. This gives him the luxury of taking the long view on issues.
To use Kaspersky's software against a foreign superpower is only a smart move as an opening shot in a hot war. This is because any spying or other mischief done through their product will almost certainly be caught. It's a (pardon the expression) trump card - you only get to play this card once and it's burnt forever. The only reason to worry about Kaspersky's software is if you're worried about a hot war with Russia, which is a mind-blowingly dumb move on either side. There are plenty of US politicians that are dumb enough to go there - they "need" to keep that military-industrial complex gravy train rolling, and people riled up about furr'ners tend are easy to make sign on to any asshat agenda.
The suspicious-Kaspersky story is just an extension of the general bad-Russia excuse the Hillary machine has been using for the past year. Kaspersky's only sin is being a Russian-based company. As software companies go, Kaspersky is probably more trustworthy than, say, Microsoft.
The solution is to allow everybody an airline-supplied computer, which is connected to the internet. Everybody needs to use their online storage for their files. If the person has special software on their laptop, that's something to be dealt with in the next version of the solution.
The solution for bombs concealed in clothing is simply to have everybody fly naked.
I have several suggestions for requirements for the office of President. Yes, releasing the tax returns should be mandatory. But it's not going to happen with Trump. And I don't know how a law could be crafted to do the job.
OTOH, we already know what Trump's returns say. They say what Hillary said they would "probably" say. (Of course, she has IRS connections that could view them.) They say Trump is not as rich as he claims, and he didn't pay much in taxes.
As are the hysterical responses from the democrats, and the press. Trump has accomplished the closest thing to world domination as we'll ever see. Every single thing is becoming an editorial about him.
I know. This becomes yet another time I have to defend this borderline-crazy guy.
I'm all in favor of political office holders Tweeting or using some other instant means to express their views. If you don't approve of the message, they you can oppose the position. Why should anybody care if Trump tweets?
This is a Politico poll, a known opponent of Trump. So one must see the questions, how they were presented and what the audience makeup was. Before giving any validity to the polling data.
How can you say that about Politico? They said Trump had a 2% chance of winning, and you see they were right! The result was that 2%.
You should add to that list the infuriating refusal to release her wall st. speech transcripts until 'everyone else does first'. And avoiding press conferences. Then there was the big lie about what happened in Benghazi... the list just goes on and on, doesn't it?
Believe it or not, those didn't come to mind. Maybe, fortunately, she's fading in my memory.
Of course it's a real document, but is it based on reality or something someone wanted released? My guess, she's a pawn and someone left it out for her to find knowing her political opinions. If someone were to leak a document saying Elon Musk achieved cold fusion in the 3rd floor men's bathroom at Tesla's corporate office, a bunch of people would believe it because they want to believe it. It doesn't make a load of crap any more true.
The portrait CNN is painting is that she is an idealistic and nice girl working for an intelligence contractor that leaked this one document because.... why? She believed the NSA was hiding the truth of Russian hacking, and she wanted the people to know? She was a closet Hillary supporter who wanted her idol vindicated?
She also left an obvious trail that included direct emails to the Intercept.
Yes, 3 June. The article was published on 5 June. The Intercept did an amazing job protecting its source. Did the Intercept even try to protect its source? What's their comment on this failure?
IOW, the article was published on the Intercept to give it more credibility than, say, on CNN.
I've been reading https://theintercept.com/2017/... for about a half an hour. There still is no "raw data". It's still, "Trust Us, We wouldn’t reach conclusions without real evidence!" I'm suspicious about the whole thing.
The Intercept (not Greenwald) did such a good job of protecting their source that she was busted _before_ the document was published? She is Reality Leigh Winner, 25. This idealistic kid wants to protect Hillary and the MSM? She works for Pluribus International Corporation in Georgia http://www.pluribusinternation... , yet she didn't cover her emails to the Intercept? She also didn't cover the act of "copying" the document? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/...
This is nothing more than the swamp's latest salvo.
This is the second time Hillary failed to become “the inevitable president”. Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation?
Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic) rust belt states in her campaign?
Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers “bimbos”?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive missiles?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already in Syria?
Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about “came, saw, and kill” Kaddafi?
Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist homophobic bigots?
Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC’s Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a “botched robbery” in which nothing was taken.
Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they did do that one.
Density also shortens pathways, so that the clock speed may not change, but the distance cut increases efficiency of design.
I remember seeing a demo by someone (Grace Hopper??) holding up a piece of wire, and saying "This is a microsecond", the distance speed of light travels in that time frame. It was quite illuminating to me at the time (35 years ago)
Nanosecond, that is 10^-9 second is what you mean. She was giving an idea of the speed of light in a vacuum is about a foot per nanosecond. The electrical wavefront velocity in a copper wire is somewhat slower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or https://www.quora.com/What-is-...
Basically, Hopper was off by about an inch. The wavefront only travels 11 inches in a nanosecond.
In terms of the conductive paths on an integrated circuit, I will defer to a more knowledgeable brain.
BTW, If an inch were an AU (distance from the earth to the sun), a mile would be a lightyear.
If you stacked 100,000 cans of Campbell's soup, you'd interfere with airliners in flight.
My newswriting prof always said that you should never use "due to" except when talking about owing an actual debt to someone. I would tend to argue that it is acceptable, but only in very limited contexts where its meaning is unambiguous, which basically means it is only okay after an action verb, and never after a linking verb.
"The rain was due to him" could mean either that he seeded the clouds to cause the rain or that he deserved it.
"The concert was cancelled due to rain" can have only one meaning because the action verb forces the word "due" to be interpreted as part of the compound preposition "due to" instead of as a standalone adjective.
Either way, it depends on your style guide. AP says it's fine; Chicago says it isn't.
Although your example sentence using “was due to” is ambiguous, it doesn’t mean every sentence with the construction is. It isn’t hard to make unambiguous language using “was due to” (or, more generally, a linking verb followed by “due to”):
The lower density of solid water relative to liquid is due to the further-apart arrangement H2O molecules take when water crystallizes into a solid.
The sentence you approve of, “The concert was canceled due to rain” would sound better substituting “because of” for “due to”: The concert was canceled because of the rain.” But I would also dump the passive voice: “Unlike what occurred at Woodstock, rain caused the promoters to cancel the concert.”
In the video he apparently acts surprised when he finds the gun. He doesn't tell anyone it's a "reenactment" until his statement and the video don't quite line up with each other and the prosecutor asks him about it.
Despite my criticism of the Pueblo legal system (based on my own experience), I should say that I believe at least one prosecutor was honest (I don't remember his name). I also must say I believe the chief of police was a good guy too (from Kansas City). But on the whole, a typical cop was more criminal than the average criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
The average person in America is so brainwashed, they still believe this is the Land of the Free. The fact that we have the highest incarceration rate is irrelevant because those incarcerated people are criminals.
I think he have a daughter but I highly doubt she would like to follow him so probably his next best hunchback will be the anointed.
I don't see his daughter as being in the game either.
He just answered that question in a Q&A session. He answered that people want leaders to choose a successor, but in the end, it's up to the people.
https://www.usnews.com/news/wo...
“the successor to the president is determined only by the Russian people in the course of democratic elections, and no one else.”
https://www.rt.com/politics/39...
It's revealing to compare the two reports of the same event.
Putin has an estimated net worth of 200 billion with all the money he's squirreled away ...
That actually is a classic example of fake news. Hermitage Capital Management Founder Bill Browder called him the "Richest man in the world" when speaking to U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, and all of the Time Warner etc. media carried articles amplifying the statement. Usually, they said Bezos and Gates together didn't come close to Putin's wealth. Nonetheless, the Forbes most recent list of richest in the world https://goo.gl/NvqgGk puts Gates in the top slot.
The trick is that Putin's wealth is secret!
Russia has things worthy of criticism. The soon-to-take-effect VPN ban is a good one. But Putin being super, super rich is just BS.
Since the bigger security threat comes from inside America rather than out, Kaspersky is probably safer than 3rd party American anti-malware. The NSA has easy access to the local companies and can influence them. The NSA can't so easily influence Kaspersky to do its bidding.
This has got to be the dumbest tempest in a teapot ever conceived. The funny thing is that it's based on projection - it's the sort of short-term idiocy that American politicians and bureaucrats endlessly engage in. Putin may be a cold, ultranationalistic tyrant, but he's an extremely smart cold, ultranationalistic tyrant who is going to be in power for either as long as he wants to be or until somebody assassinates him. This gives him the luxury of taking the long view on issues.
To use Kaspersky's software against a foreign superpower is only a smart move as an opening shot in a hot war. This is because any spying or other mischief done through their product will almost certainly be caught. It's a (pardon the expression) trump card - you only get to play this card once and it's burnt forever. The only reason to worry about Kaspersky's software is if you're worried about a hot war with Russia, which is a mind-blowingly dumb move on either side. There are plenty of US politicians that are dumb enough to go there - they "need" to keep that military-industrial complex gravy train rolling, and people riled up about furr'ners tend are easy to make sign on to any asshat agenda.
The suspicious-Kaspersky story is just an extension of the general bad-Russia excuse the Hillary machine has been using for the past year. Kaspersky's only sin is being a Russian-based company. As software companies go, Kaspersky is probably more trustworthy than, say, Microsoft.
The solution is to allow everybody an airline-supplied computer, which is connected to the internet. Everybody needs to use their online storage for their files. If the person has special software on their laptop, that's something to be dealt with in the next version of the solution.
The solution for bombs concealed in clothing is simply to have everybody fly naked.
I have several suggestions for requirements for the office of President. Yes, releasing the tax returns should be mandatory. But it's not going to happen with Trump. And I don't know how a law could be crafted to do the job.
OTOH, we already know what Trump's returns say. They say what Hillary said they would "probably" say. (Of course, she has IRS connections that could view them.) They say Trump is not as rich as he claims, and he didn't pay much in taxes.
#Covfefe
At least that shows the Tweets aren't edited by someone else.
As are the hysterical responses from the democrats, and the press. Trump has accomplished the closest thing to world domination as we'll ever see. Every single thing is becoming an editorial about him.
I know. This becomes yet another time I have to defend this borderline-crazy guy.
I'm all in favor of political office holders Tweeting or using some other instant means to express their views. If you don't approve of the message, they you can oppose the position. Why should anybody care if Trump tweets?
This is a Politico poll, a known opponent of Trump. So one must see the questions, how they were presented and what the audience makeup was. Before giving any validity to the polling data.
How can you say that about Politico? They said Trump had a 2% chance of winning, and you see they were right! The result was that 2%.
This is probably her Twitter https://twitter.com/Reezlie under the similar name, Sara Winners. http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
She's 25. That's legally an adult, but contrasted with my own 63, she's a kid. I used the term loosely.
It's a staged "whistleblow". It even had (of has) Snowden fooled. (I don't know if he's realized it yet.)
You should add to that list the infuriating refusal to release her wall st. speech transcripts until 'everyone else does first'. And avoiding press conferences. Then there was the big lie about what happened in Benghazi... the list just goes on and on, doesn't it?
Believe it or not, those didn't come to mind. Maybe, fortunately, she's fading in my memory.
Of course it's a real document, but is it based on reality or something someone wanted released? My guess, she's a pawn and someone left it out for her to find knowing her political opinions. If someone were to leak a document saying Elon Musk achieved cold fusion in the 3rd floor men's bathroom at Tesla's corporate office, a bunch of people would believe it because they want to believe it. It doesn't make a load of crap any more true.
The portrait CNN is painting is that she is an idealistic and nice girl working for an intelligence contractor that leaked this one document because .... why? She believed the NSA was hiding the truth of Russian hacking, and she wanted the people to know? She was a closet Hillary supporter who wanted her idol vindicated?
She also left an obvious trail that included direct emails to the Intercept.
I don't know why you even bother with this AC. I recognize his style from previous threads. It usually incorporates some kind of gay fantasy.
Yes, 3 June. The article was published on 5 June. The Intercept did an amazing job protecting its source. Did the Intercept even try to protect its source? What's their comment on this failure?
IOW, the article was published on the Intercept to give it more credibility than, say, on CNN.
The document is real alright. But it doesn't have any real conclusions. This time the accusations are more narrow, but that's about it.
I've been reading https://theintercept.com/2017/... for about a half an hour. There still is no "raw data". It's still, "Trust Us, We wouldn’t reach conclusions without real evidence!" I'm suspicious about the whole thing.
The Intercept (not Greenwald) did such a good job of protecting their source that she was busted _before_ the document was published? She is Reality Leigh Winner, 25. This idealistic kid wants to protect Hillary and the MSM? She works for Pluribus International Corporation in Georgia http://www.pluribusinternation... , yet she didn't cover her emails to the Intercept? She also didn't cover the act of "copying" the document? http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/05/...
This is nothing more than the swamp's latest salvo.
This is the second time Hillary failed to become “the inevitable president”. Did Russia sabotage her plans last time? (Oh, Obama won the primaries. Hillary made sure she won those this time.)
Did Russia tell Hillary to rig the primaries to freeze our Sanders?
Did Russia get the DNC to provide Hillary the debate questions in advance? (She still did terrible anyway.)
Did Russia make Hillary collapse on their way to their car?
Did Russia encourage Bill to pardon Marc Rich, the billionaire donor to the Clinton campaign and the Clinton Foundation?
Did Russia tell Hillary to be so confident that she could ignore the (previously Democratic) rust belt states in her campaign?
Did Russia tell Hillary to lie about dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia?
Did Russia tell Hillary, when she was a working attorney, to get a rapist a sweet plea deal and then laugh when questioned about it?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call Bill sexual accusers “bimbos”?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say to the bankers that she would ring China with defensive missiles?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have Huma Aberdeen as her aide, assistant editor of a publication that believes in Muslim Sharia Law?
Did Russia tell Hillary to say she would make a no-fly zone in Syria when Russia was already in Syria?
Did Russia tell Hillary to laugh demonically about “came, saw, and kill” Kaddafi?
Did Russia tell Hillary to take bribes on numerous occasions in the form of speaking fees?
Did Russia tell Hillary to use the personal unsecured server?
Did Russia tell Hillary to delete emails that were subpoenaed?
Did Russia tell Hillary to have a corrupt charity?
Did Russia tell Hillary to call 31 million voters deplorable irredeemable racist sexist homophobic bigots?
Did Russia murder Seth Rich, DNC’s Director of Voter Enhancement? He was the Sanders supporter who was shot 4 times while on the ground in a “botched robbery” in which nothing was taken.
Did Russia get the Clintons to accept a bribe on the Uranium One deal? Well, yes, they did do that one.
Density also shortens pathways, so that the clock speed may not change, but the distance cut increases efficiency of design.
I remember seeing a demo by someone (Grace Hopper??) holding up a piece of wire, and saying "This is a microsecond", the distance speed of light travels in that time frame. It was quite illuminating to me at the time (35 years ago)
Nanosecond, that is 10^-9 second is what you mean. She was giving an idea of the speed of light in a vacuum is about a foot per nanosecond. The electrical wavefront velocity in a copper wire is somewhat slower. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... or https://www.quora.com/What-is-...
Basically, Hopper was off by about an inch. The wavefront only travels 11 inches in a nanosecond.
In terms of the conductive paths on an integrated circuit, I will defer to a more knowledgeable brain.
BTW, If an inch were an AU (distance from the earth to the sun), a mile would be a lightyear.
If you stacked 100,000 cans of Campbell's soup, you'd interfere with airliners in flight.
My newswriting prof always said that you should never use "due to" except when talking about owing an actual debt to someone. I would tend to argue that it is acceptable, but only in very limited contexts where its meaning is unambiguous, which basically means it is only okay after an action verb, and never after a linking verb.
Either way, it depends on your style guide. AP says it's fine; Chicago says it isn't.
Although your example sentence using “was due to” is ambiguous, it doesn’t mean every sentence with the construction is. It isn’t hard to make unambiguous language using “was due to” (or, more generally, a linking verb followed by “due to”):
The lower density of solid water relative to liquid is due to the further-apart arrangement H2O molecules take when water crystallizes into a solid.
The sentence you approve of, “The concert was canceled due to rain” would sound better substituting “because of” for “due to”: The concert was canceled because of the rain.” But I would also dump the passive voice: “Unlike what occurred at Woodstock, rain caused the promoters to cancel the concert.”
Not everybody agrees with me http://www.perfect-english-gra... .
The Pueblo PD's policy is to run the cam during the search. Watch the video https://goo.gl/HmUxVA . The cop is the bad guy.
Look at the video https://goo.gl/HmUxVA . The cop was clearly trying to deceive the court. The cop is the criminal.
In the video he apparently acts surprised when he finds the gun. He doesn't tell anyone it's a "reenactment" until his statement and the video don't quite line up with each other and the prosecutor asks him about it.
video: https://goo.gl/HmUxVA
Despite my criticism of the Pueblo legal system (based on my own experience), I should say that I believe at least one prosecutor was honest (I don't remember his name). I also must say I believe the chief of police was a good guy too (from Kansas City). But on the whole, a typical cop was more criminal than the average criminal.