Trump used the time machine hidden on Putin's secret moon base to go back in time and convince Obama to empower the FBI with this power. Evil Trump, again!
Because we all know that the Obama administration was The Most Transparent and Most Open and Most All Good Things ever, ever in history, ever. And that Hillary Clinton was a big fan and was going to continue his policies. Except for Trump's secret time travel leverage. Evil Trump!
didn't do something really dire and criminal like tweet about climate change
You mean, make official communications on behalf of a federal agency when the person in charge of that agency is in the middle of replacing - as happens regularly - the politically appointed management of that agency? Yeah, like that.
I suppose, though, you'd have been cool with an employee of NASA making tweets from official government accounts about Putin's secret moon base where he produces pieces for his mind control ray machine. Right? No? I see. Communicating from official channels on behalf of the federal government is an activity subject to the executive branch's directives. We're ONE WEEK into that changing hands. Maybe give it a rest for a few minutes?
Yes, Trump DID inherit a crappy economy. The crappy economy is one of the main reasons Trump was elected. The Democrat's willful misrepresentation of the employment situation, among other things, is one of their more transparently nonsensical recurring bits BS, and people know better. If you really wanted an "evidence based world," you'd be talking about the breathless hyperbole and deliberate distortions we're hearing from the Democrat propaganda machine this the majority of the media and entertainment complex. We have more people out of the work force than we've seen since the Depression. We just wrapped up the slowest growth in the economy in five years, with the economy very stagnant and real income continuing to decline even as things like Obamacare-compliant health insurance are completely destroying household disposable income and spending - something that's only just beginning to take its broader toll the entire economy. Wish those things away if you want, but you're just whistling past the graveyard. The voters got tired of it, and changed the tune.
The silly histrionics and theatrics are actually pretty funny. So, what is the mechanism by which you imagine this is going to happen? Specifically. What did you have in mind as the means by which the (what, military? which branch exactly?) executive branch was somehow going to suddenly overthrow the legislature and the courts, and all of the law enforcement agencies and people in the DoD were suddenly going to drop their personal sensibilities? Really, be specific, instead of delusional.
Which part of the democracy has been dismantled in the last week that has changed in any way, structurally, from Obama's reign? Other than, of course, many of Obama's over-reaching executive orders being reversed or headed to reversal, and a the likelihood of a constructionist being placed on the SCOTUS instead of the pro-executive-power type that Clinton said she'd place.
Is it the temporary immigration order you're worried about? Were you predicting the end of democracy when Obama did it? No? Why not?
Sorry, but the election is over and you don't get to point the finger at Obama when Trump does all his daffy shit.
Compared to Obama supporters blaming everything Obama did on Bush, for eight years straight? Regardless: the point of looking at Obama's signing off on a half-year ban in 2011 is simply to show how hilariously hypocritical the shrieking left is as they react to things like this. No complaints from them when their team's guy denies refugees entrance for half a year because of security concerns, but a national shortage of fainting couches the moment the same thing is ordered for a much shorter period of time now. Love the hypocrisy, and love how transparently it's on display. That's the best.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output? As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people... to murder them? And that many of those killers and their support circles were lumped in with a huge flow of refugees?
How does Facebook making your public posts public... make them evil? If, as in the case of the San Bernadino terrorists, the killers' social media output is full of lots of signs that they are murderous jihaddis, how is it somehow evil of Facebook to display they stuff the users put there because they want it to be seen?
Not following your thinking, here. Is a laser printer evil if you use it to print out your "I'm going to kill you, you heathen!" letter?
Right. You spend money on advertising as you see necessary to sell your product so you can stay in business.
Pushing the bounds of advertising, both to the public and to professionals to rather dubious levels
So what you're really thinking about there is the poor state of critical thinking skills in the average person who watches TV?
Pushing the prices of older, well established, simple drugs to sky high levels - just because they can
Because selling what you have, while you can, so you can also spend billions on other things that don't make any money, is part of how you manage to avoid bankruptcy.
Lobbying the spineless Congresscritters to keep drugs from other (actually healthier, safer) countries out of the US unless the go through a US company.
Talk to the politicians who love to act through the infliction of ever more regulations. Happily, one of the chief among those just left office, and one of the scariest possible replacement for him talked herself out of being elected.
Why? Because they know they have to make a profit or they go out of business, so they (wait for it!) look at the markets where they sell and try to make the best bet on what they can charge so they can continue to do things like spending billions on research and retain the investments needed to stay afloat in a wildly risky business? Yeah, pure eeeevil. They should definitely be nationalized and run by the government.
It's crap like this that's why we can't have nice things... long payoff period. It may takes years, even decades... Wall Street... death of American innovation
No, Wall Street has all sorts of happy investments in companies that DO take years and years to get a small number of viable products (out of many expensive failures) to market. It's call pharmaceuticals. Bio-tech in many forms is long ball, and money continues to pour into those companies, with investors knowing full well that there will be years between ideas and viable products, with most ideas going down in flames. The difference between some young tech company like Google dabbling in a random grab-bag of technologies in a bunch of different areas and a company that has spent decades researching and making drugs is: investors have a track record with the large drug companies, and the life cycle is understood - so they are willing to make long term risks. When Google says, "Hey, that whole search and advertising thing worked pretty well, so obviously you can trust us on solar powered ISP airplanes"... it's not surprising that investors may be a little more shy.
Would this be the same law that sees police shoot unarmed, cooperating people dead without fear of even loosing their jobs let alone be prosecuited or held accountable
You mean the law that routinely brings such cases before grand juries and then frequently sends them along to a trial? That law?
or would it be that law that allows for unrestricted disregard for the 4th Amendment and other "rights"?
Which law is that? You're being deliberately hand-wavy and vague in order to sound dramatic and righteous without troubling yourself to provide any actual examples. Why? Because you know you're being a drama queen. "Unrestricted" in which sense? Which law is completely unrestricted? Be specific.
Note that it's not the "bad words" people you call SJWs complain about, it's the actual racism behind them.
100%, precisely, exactly backwards.
The reason shallow-thinking, tyrannical liberals do things like banning "Huck Finn" from schools IS because of the "bad words." They are intellectually incapable of grasping that the entire point of those passages in Twain's book was fully in support of those against racism, and that he used his narratives to excoriate racists and dimwitted people. You know, dimwitted people who immediately resort to using a phony narrative about liberal book banning so they don't have to confront the craven instinct for censorship that his one of the hallmarks of Progressive politics.
Then it's not fake news, now is it?
If may be insignificant and not newsworthy, but it is not fake.
It's the very definition of Fake News. Because the "news" aspect of that memegurgitation is the similarity between the inaugural address and a villain's monologue in a movie. Given the tiny scrap of text being used to make that fake narrative, the people pretending it's something of note might as well have said, "Both Trump, like Hitler, likely had breakfast before giving their speeches." It's absurd. You know it, and we know you know it.
It's NOT insignificant, because what's significant is the way the whiny haters feel they have to reach for this sort of phoniness in order to give them something they can post on Facebook for their fellow snowflakes to Like and Share. It's not insignificant, because it illustrates the monumental hypocrisy and craven reliance on nonsensical cultural references in order to continue the effort to distract everyone from just how badly the Democrats have been losing ground for the last eight years. If it were only Trump, it would be different. But a thousand state legislative seats later, and most of the governorships, and both houses of congress along with that change in the White House and shortly the Supreme Court - there you have it. A total plastering. So of course liberals do what they do: use idiotic fake news to pat each other on the back inside their echo chamber.
As news, it's fake no matter how you slice it. As a window into the way the Democrats will be conducting themselves ahead of the upcoming legislative elections, it's very predictive. Which is fantastic.
Yes. Just like lots of studios risk buying already-made films, gambling that price on their conclusion that it will succeed with audiences and not lose them money. Most large studios do that, even when, like Amazon is, they are also advance-funding many other productions.
They didn't earn an Oscar nomination, they bought one.
Which is what EVERY production company does. They take money they already have or can attract from investors. Other people actually act, do makeup, edit, design sets... you know, actually make the movie. Amazon is just doing what's been done for many decades - bought movies. Whether they buy it in advance, or buy the investment from someone who put the money up first, it's the same thing. Meanwhile, they are also actually getting more into the weeds of directly creating the entertainment products. Large production/studio outfits engage at all of these levels and always have.
The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending... what can we afford to research?"
You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.
Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
Because while he is thin-skinned, he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's decades of history of corruptly exploiting public office to enrich her and her family while baldly lying to your face about it. She's made herself rich - not by building hotels or other constructive things, but by selling political access to people like overseas dictators who don't mind things like throwing gay guys off of rooftops to please Allah.
So we don't like his manners, but we do like her serial lying, corruption, and incompetence... because she's been doing it for a long time and we're used to it? No thanks.
We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.
As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.
Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.
Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades)
Probably a lot more than that. You're not understanding the usefulness of air strikes on this sort of combatant.
on various brown people
Right, right. It's because of their skin pigment! For reference, resorting to lazy race baiting doesn't really win arguments (see the most recent election results as an example)
(even though we are not at war).
Yes, I can see you're having some trouble grasping current events. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people in the future. Like, voting.
If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority
I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!
Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?
Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.
They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.
They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump used the time machine hidden on Putin's secret moon base to go back in time and convince Obama to empower the FBI with this power. Evil Trump, again!
Because we all know that the Obama administration was The Most Transparent and Most Open and Most All Good Things ever, ever in history, ever. And that Hillary Clinton was a big fan and was going to continue his policies. Except for Trump's secret time travel leverage. Evil Trump!
didn't do something really dire and criminal like tweet about climate change
You mean, make official communications on behalf of a federal agency when the person in charge of that agency is in the middle of replacing - as happens regularly - the politically appointed management of that agency? Yeah, like that.
I suppose, though, you'd have been cool with an employee of NASA making tweets from official government accounts about Putin's secret moon base where he produces pieces for his mind control ray machine. Right? No? I see. Communicating from official channels on behalf of the federal government is an activity subject to the executive branch's directives. We're ONE WEEK into that changing hands. Maybe give it a rest for a few minutes?
There is a growing plague of this nonsensical usage. It's absurd.
Yes, Trump DID inherit a crappy economy. The crappy economy is one of the main reasons Trump was elected. The Democrat's willful misrepresentation of the employment situation, among other things, is one of their more transparently nonsensical recurring bits BS, and people know better. If you really wanted an "evidence based world," you'd be talking about the breathless hyperbole and deliberate distortions we're hearing from the Democrat propaganda machine this the majority of the media and entertainment complex. We have more people out of the work force than we've seen since the Depression. We just wrapped up the slowest growth in the economy in five years, with the economy very stagnant and real income continuing to decline even as things like Obamacare-compliant health insurance are completely destroying household disposable income and spending - something that's only just beginning to take its broader toll the entire economy. Wish those things away if you want, but you're just whistling past the graveyard. The voters got tired of it, and changed the tune.
The silly histrionics and theatrics are actually pretty funny. So, what is the mechanism by which you imagine this is going to happen? Specifically. What did you have in mind as the means by which the (what, military? which branch exactly?) executive branch was somehow going to suddenly overthrow the legislature and the courts, and all of the law enforcement agencies and people in the DoD were suddenly going to drop their personal sensibilities? Really, be specific, instead of delusional.
Which part of the democracy has been dismantled in the last week that has changed in any way, structurally, from Obama's reign? Other than, of course, many of Obama's over-reaching executive orders being reversed or headed to reversal, and a the likelihood of a constructionist being placed on the SCOTUS instead of the pro-executive-power type that Clinton said she'd place.
Is it the temporary immigration order you're worried about? Were you predicting the end of democracy when Obama did it? No? Why not?
Sorry, but the election is over and you don't get to point the finger at Obama when Trump does all his daffy shit.
Compared to Obama supporters blaming everything Obama did on Bush, for eight years straight? Regardless: the point of looking at Obama's signing off on a half-year ban in 2011 is simply to show how hilariously hypocritical the shrieking left is as they react to things like this. No complaints from them when their team's guy denies refugees entrance for half a year because of security concerns, but a national shortage of fainting couches the moment the same thing is ordered for a much shorter period of time now. Love the hypocrisy, and love how transparently it's on display. That's the best.
Cynic in me says they are looking for someone who can be implicated as a terrorist supporter to be used to justify the ban.
As opposed to simply pointing to the fact that the seven countries in question are (as identified by the Obama administration hotbeds of violent jihaddi output? As opposed to simply observing the fact that hundreds of people have died in the last couple of years at the hands of immigrants from those areas who have deliberately entered the countries where they murdered people ... to murder them? And that many of those killers and their support circles were lumped in with a huge flow of refugees?
Facebook is evil for many reasons, this is one...
How does Facebook making your public posts public ... make them evil? If, as in the case of the San Bernadino terrorists, the killers' social media output is full of lots of signs that they are murderous jihaddis, how is it somehow evil of Facebook to display they stuff the users put there because they want it to be seen?
Not following your thinking, here. Is a laser printer evil if you use it to print out your "I'm going to kill you, you heathen!" letter?
Spending more money on advertising than research
Right. You spend money on advertising as you see necessary to sell your product so you can stay in business.
Pushing the bounds of advertising, both to the public and to professionals to rather dubious levels
So what you're really thinking about there is the poor state of critical thinking skills in the average person who watches TV?
Pushing the prices of older, well established, simple drugs to sky high levels - just because they can
Because selling what you have, while you can, so you can also spend billions on other things that don't make any money, is part of how you manage to avoid bankruptcy.
Lobbying the spineless Congresscritters to keep drugs from other (actually healthier, safer) countries out of the US unless the go through a US company.
Talk to the politicians who love to act through the infliction of ever more regulations. Happily, one of the chief among those just left office, and one of the scariest possible replacement for him talked herself out of being elected.
Why? Because they know they have to make a profit or they go out of business, so they (wait for it!) look at the markets where they sell and try to make the best bet on what they can charge so they can continue to do things like spending billions on research and retain the investments needed to stay afloat in a wildly risky business? Yeah, pure eeeevil. They should definitely be nationalized and run by the government.
It's crap like this that's why we can't have nice things ... long payoff period. It may takes years, even decades ... Wall Street ... death of American innovation
No, Wall Street has all sorts of happy investments in companies that DO take years and years to get a small number of viable products (out of many expensive failures) to market. It's call pharmaceuticals. Bio-tech in many forms is long ball, and money continues to pour into those companies, with investors knowing full well that there will be years between ideas and viable products, with most ideas going down in flames. The difference between some young tech company like Google dabbling in a random grab-bag of technologies in a bunch of different areas and a company that has spent decades researching and making drugs is: investors have a track record with the large drug companies, and the life cycle is understood - so they are willing to make long term risks. When Google says, "Hey, that whole search and advertising thing worked pretty well, so obviously you can trust us on solar powered ISP airplanes" ... it's not surprising that investors may be a little more shy.
Not every single research project pays off... But the ones that do more than pay for the ones that don't
But when pharmaceutical companies use this same approach, they are Teh Eeevil.
Would this be the same law that sees police shoot unarmed, cooperating people dead without fear of even loosing their jobs let alone be prosecuited or held accountable
You mean the law that routinely brings such cases before grand juries and then frequently sends them along to a trial? That law?
or would it be that law that allows for unrestricted disregard for the 4th Amendment and other "rights"?
Which law is that? You're being deliberately hand-wavy and vague in order to sound dramatic and righteous without troubling yourself to provide any actual examples. Why? Because you know you're being a drama queen. "Unrestricted" in which sense? Which law is completely unrestricted? Be specific.
"to the extent consistent with applicable law"
Extend the runway. gotta be cheaper than tunnels to LAX
You've never actually interacted with the government before, have you?
Note that it's not the "bad words" people you call SJWs complain about, it's the actual racism behind them.
100%, precisely, exactly backwards.
The reason shallow-thinking, tyrannical liberals do things like banning "Huck Finn" from schools IS because of the "bad words." They are intellectually incapable of grasping that the entire point of those passages in Twain's book was fully in support of those against racism, and that he used his narratives to excoriate racists and dimwitted people. You know, dimwitted people who immediately resort to using a phony narrative about liberal book banning so they don't have to confront the craven instinct for censorship that his one of the hallmarks of Progressive politics.
Then it's not fake news, now is it?
If may be insignificant and not newsworthy, but it is not fake.
It's the very definition of Fake News. Because the "news" aspect of that memegurgitation is the similarity between the inaugural address and a villain's monologue in a movie. Given the tiny scrap of text being used to make that fake narrative, the people pretending it's something of note might as well have said, "Both Trump, like Hitler, likely had breakfast before giving their speeches." It's absurd. You know it, and we know you know it.
It's NOT insignificant, because what's significant is the way the whiny haters feel they have to reach for this sort of phoniness in order to give them something they can post on Facebook for their fellow snowflakes to Like and Share. It's not insignificant, because it illustrates the monumental hypocrisy and craven reliance on nonsensical cultural references in order to continue the effort to distract everyone from just how badly the Democrats have been losing ground for the last eight years. If it were only Trump, it would be different. But a thousand state legislative seats later, and most of the governorships, and both houses of congress along with that change in the White House and shortly the Supreme Court - there you have it. A total plastering. So of course liberals do what they do: use idiotic fake news to pat each other on the back inside their echo chamber.
As news, it's fake no matter how you slice it. As a window into the way the Democrats will be conducting themselves ahead of the upcoming legislative elections, it's very predictive. Which is fantastic.
Yes. Just like lots of studios risk buying already-made films, gambling that price on their conclusion that it will succeed with audiences and not lose them money. Most large studios do that, even when, like Amazon is, they are also advance-funding many other productions.
They didn't earn an Oscar nomination, they bought one.
Which is what EVERY production company does. They take money they already have or can attract from investors. Other people actually act, do makeup, edit, design sets ... you know, actually make the movie. Amazon is just doing what's been done for many decades - bought movies. Whether they buy it in advance, or buy the investment from someone who put the money up first, it's the same thing. Meanwhile, they are also actually getting more into the weeds of directly creating the entertainment products. Large production/studio outfits engage at all of these levels and always have.
The useful numbers for decision making are "how many people could be helped by addressing this issue?"
No, the first and primary useful number consideration is, "Now that we're 20 TRILLION dollars in debt and most new jobs are low-paying junk that barely creates any tax revenue, and we have an exploding entitlement spending problem the mere interest on the debt for which will soon displace nearly all discretionary spending ... what can we afford to research?"
You want to address the X in Y cases of Z disease in given populations? Return to producing the sort of economic health and largess that allows us to spend that kind of money in the first place. Otherwise, it's like a bankrupt person trying to decide whether to buy a new raincoat or an umbrella so they don't get their nice to outfit wet, because, you know, priorities. A house in fiscal order can spend vastly more money on everything from pure medical research to Mars missions without crushing the very economy that underwrites such things.
Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
Because while he is thin-skinned, he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's decades of history of corruptly exploiting public office to enrich her and her family while baldly lying to your face about it. She's made herself rich - not by building hotels or other constructive things, but by selling political access to people like overseas dictators who don't mind things like throwing gay guys off of rooftops to please Allah.
... because she's been doing it for a long time and we're used to it? No thanks.
So we don't like his manners, but we do like her serial lying, corruption, and incompetence
Yup.
We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.
As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.
Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.
Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades)
Probably a lot more than that. You're not understanding the usefulness of air strikes on this sort of combatant.
on various brown people
Right, right. It's because of their skin pigment! For reference, resorting to lazy race baiting doesn't really win arguments (see the most recent election results as an example)
(even though we are not at war).
Yes, I can see you're having some trouble grasping current events. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people in the future. Like, voting.
If your companies top priority is to keep data secure, they how/why did you get hacked. They always say that, but clearly that is not the Top Priority
I see you're doing your part by not using dangerous apostrophes where they are needed!
... and of course nobody could or would want to use the system or pay the monthly fee needed to keep something like that alive.
Implicit in any company's statement that security is their top priority is the large bundle of compromises that don't go away whether or not that is your top priority. They could make the data perfectly secure by disconnecting the servers and putting them in a bank vault. They could make sure the data can't be breached by simply destroying all of it. See?
Security can be your Top Priority, but it has to be done in the context of things like still making it available to users across the internet. Doing it while not going bankrupt. Making the service competitively priced so that it can actually be afforded and put to work.
They could have said that the system could only be used on equipment they ship to their clients, connected to the back end through a hardware-based dedicated VPN with biometrics, dongles, and constant nagging by three-factor comms surrounding every time someone hits the enter key
They may very well put security at a higher priority than chipping away at a long list of UX updates, performance under load, documentation, multi-language support, and a thousand other things. Doesn't mean that doing so means they'll be perfect in their security results. Ever run a business like that? No? Give it a whirl. Make security your top priority, and then start paying attention to what that decision means in real life - including in your ability to get and retain customers during that balancing act.