I am registered, but not as a D or R, but should I want to help choose the R candidate, I cannot, even though I'm paying for their private popularity contest.
Just like all of those Republicans are paying for your yours. Anybody who puts together a legitimately large enough group of people that want to select among themselves a candidate to put forth in a general election get to do the same thing. But it only annoys you if it's not your personal group, right?
Her conduct in that matter is mostly just an example her general sleaziness and sociopathic dishonesty.
.
As far has here private email server she'll get indicted when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice get indicted for doing similar things with their email.
You're either completely uninformed about the details of the situation, or you're trying to be deliberately misleading. Either way, please stop. Go learn the facts, or stop lying about it to serve your agenda.
Hey look! More snark and still nothing to back up your claims! Neato. It's always someone else's "charades" when you've been asked to back up what you say, right? Yup.
Oh, just to watch you mumble and be all the more on the record being unwilling and unable to back up your off-target assertions and characterizations. Perhaps in the vague hope that one day you'll consider slinging that kind of stuff with some actual facts attached to it, instead of hoping to score cheap points with low information readers who fall for your kind of postings. And, as a side benefit, hoping to point out that words have meaning. You're quick to throw around the word "thief" without explaining which human beings you say have actually stolen something, and without explaining who at DoJ has information about a theft but is unwilling to charge the person who stole [whatever it is you failed to identify as having been stolen in 2008 from your unidentified victims, etc].
Basically, you trot out hollow, context-free stuff like that all the time, and it's just fun to watch you leave a trail of confirmation that you know you're doing it. It's just fun when people who know they're posting without any intellectual integrity thump their chests and agree that that's how they carry on, and that they're proud of it. Good on you. The first step is admitting it. Your willingness to be annoyed and still typing for several posts straight gives lie to your empty hand waving about not having time to provide a single name and the theft charge that named person somehow dodged at DoJ. Nobody has "won" anything unless you stop doing that.
So in other words, your ability to make your point is SO bad, and the point you're trying to make is so weak that you could type another couple dozen words of ad hominem, but still couldn't muster the energy to type out a first and last name, and the simple name of the statute under which you think that person should have been charged, but which the DoJ elected not to use. First name, last name, law broken. Easy. Nope, you'd rather misdirect, and avoid substance.
It's always fun to watch you being too busy to post the information you pretend to have to back up your snark, but never too busy to post vague hand-wavy ad hominem blather. At least you're predictable.
If you have enough money to pay for your crimes, you just pay your way out of the US justice system with settlements.
Unless that's not the case, and you've done something criminal while working, and you get charged with a crime and you go to jail. Which happens regularly even amongst very well-off circles. Why? Because when individuals do crimes, especially in industries that leave a huge paper trail, the evidence doesn't go away. So, instead of generalities, name the names of the people at GS who committed specific crimes, and name the crimes that the DoJ decided not to charge those individual people with. You know, since you haven't been under a rock, you'll have that list of DoJ-knew-who-committed-crimes-but-elected-not-to-charge people somewhere handy. Do tell.
So, if we wrote 90,000 articles about you, that would make you a criminal? Which specific people at GS committed which specific crimes for which they were not charged? You seem to know all about it, so let's hear some names, and the statutes under which those people should be criminally charged. I'm sure you're already typing that up, so we should see it in a moment or two.
why anybody would want to let a thief (you do remember 2008, right?) keep their money
If you have evidence of someone at GS actually stealing money, you should take that to the DoJ. But if you're just whining because you don't like the way the 2008 mess played out, and wish that we'd had a more total collapse just so other people could suffer more to make you feel better, then just mutter those things to yourself, instead of pretending you have secret knowledge of actual, specific crimes that thousands of investigators with multiple agencies couldn't spot.
Which GS people committed which crimes for which they should be in prison? Please be specific.
Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals
Which officials with GS admitted to which crimes? Be specific.
You certainly don't have to do business with them. But if you have evidence of specific crimes that nobody else has managed to identify, you might want to pass those along to the DoJ.
I don't understand what that means. Was the OS on that workstation licensed, or not? Is that more or less of a license than the one needed on another (bigger?) workstation?
Because if you actually pay for the licenses that the people who create the software you want say you need to buy if you want to use the things they've created, it's a non-issue. How is it a "shakedown" to require people who want your product to act according to the agreement required before they can use it? Is it a "shakedown" when you order three sandwiches and the chef asks you to actually pay for all three, instead of one? If you work 40 hours and expect your employer to pay for all of those hours, per your contract, is that you "shaking down" the employer?
If someone wants to show examples of (for example, Adobe) forcing a customer to pay for licenses to which they did not agree to purchase, representing seats they're not using, that's another matter. So let's see one of those (verified) stories, instead of characterizing the expectation that people honor their contracts as a shakedown.
No, what happens is that you carefully avoid addressing the point being made, and resort to juvenile ad hominem in order to lamely change the subject. Let's try this again.
Which is worse:
1) A small controlled burn that, alas, does indeed damage part of Wilderness Area X.
or
2) An out of control wildfire that COMPLETELY destroys Wilderness Area X, and dozens more just like it.
Pick one of those two. Ideally, with some intellectual integrity involved in the process.
So, controlled fires in small wilderness areas destroy more wildlife than huge, uncontrolled fires that burn those exact same areas and hundreds or thousands of times more acres full of wildlife. Gotcha. X = Bad. X*100 = Good.
I sure hope you merely whine about things you don't understand, rather than having any sort of role in establishing policy.
You're the one waxing histrionic with your florid prose.
No, you're the one who opened up by implying that firefighters are heading out to slaughter wildlife, instead of save it. Now you're saying that's just a rhetorical flourish or something, and you didn't really mean it?
Meanwhile, you're sticking with your notion that the people who use small controlled burns to prevent hugely destructive wildfires which destroy vast numbers of wild bees are out to ruin wildlife because they're foolish evil people who hate nature and whatnot. Your own holier-than-thou posturing is the problem here, not the work that's done to prevent massively destructive, habitat-killing out of control fires. It's people like you that, through railing against such actions, cause more destruction to natural habitats than anything the local firefighters would ever do.
I know! Let's immolate every last bit of native habitat for bees and other worthless wildlife!
Does it physically hurt to be that much of a moron? Or is it more of a numbing effect, so you don't really know that's how you are?
The entire point of small controlled brush burns is to prevent the leaping, raging wildfires that DO destroy huge swaths of habitat. The most destructive fires we see are those that take place in areas where small brush fires have been continually extinguished, preserving the fuel that nature would normally have burned off along the way through lightning-strike fires and the like. Of course you know this, and you're just being a troll for trolling's sake, because you're a tool of a troll. But what do you get out of it, psychologically? Just curious what makes people like you feel better once you've spouted some nonsense like that. Do you get congratulations from other people? Do you read it later and smile because you were so clever? Really, what makes it worth the trouble? How does adding more ignorant-sounding nonsense to the public discourse improve your waking hours, personally? Please explain.
Hold on, I'll check with some of the million or so people killed when the North Koreans tried to force their rosy form of socialism onto the south. I'm sure you're thinking that's all imaginary, of course.
Nobody. That's a myth, just like Santa Claus, the Year Of Linux On The Desktop, and other bits of wishful thinking. The simulation allows the simulated people in it to have imaginations and to believe in nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I am registered, but not as a D or R, but should I want to help choose the R candidate, I cannot, even though I'm paying for their private popularity contest.
Just like all of those Republicans are paying for your yours. Anybody who puts together a legitimately large enough group of people that want to select among themselves a candidate to put forth in a general election get to do the same thing. But it only annoys you if it's not your personal group, right?
Benghazi!
Her conduct in that matter is mostly just an example her general sleaziness and sociopathic dishonesty.
.
As far has here private email server she'll get indicted when Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice get indicted for doing similar things with their email.
You're either completely uninformed about the details of the situation, or you're trying to be deliberately misleading. Either way, please stop. Go learn the facts, or stop lying about it to serve your agenda.
Another attempt to legislate a technical solution to a cultural problem.
Hey look! More snark and still nothing to back up your claims! Neato. It's always someone else's "charades" when you've been asked to back up what you say, right? Yup.
Oh, just to watch you mumble and be all the more on the record being unwilling and unable to back up your off-target assertions and characterizations. Perhaps in the vague hope that one day you'll consider slinging that kind of stuff with some actual facts attached to it, instead of hoping to score cheap points with low information readers who fall for your kind of postings. And, as a side benefit, hoping to point out that words have meaning. You're quick to throw around the word "thief" without explaining which human beings you say have actually stolen something, and without explaining who at DoJ has information about a theft but is unwilling to charge the person who stole [whatever it is you failed to identify as having been stolen in 2008 from your unidentified victims, etc].
Basically, you trot out hollow, context-free stuff like that all the time, and it's just fun to watch you leave a trail of confirmation that you know you're doing it. It's just fun when people who know they're posting without any intellectual integrity thump their chests and agree that that's how they carry on, and that they're proud of it. Good on you. The first step is admitting it. Your willingness to be annoyed and still typing for several posts straight gives lie to your empty hand waving about not having time to provide a single name and the theft charge that named person somehow dodged at DoJ. Nobody has "won" anything unless you stop doing that.
So in other words, your ability to make your point is SO bad, and the point you're trying to make is so weak that you could type another couple dozen words of ad hominem, but still couldn't muster the energy to type out a first and last name, and the simple name of the statute under which you think that person should have been charged, but which the DoJ elected not to use. First name, last name, law broken. Easy. Nope, you'd rather misdirect, and avoid substance.
It's always fun to watch you being too busy to post the information you pretend to have to back up your snark, but never too busy to post vague hand-wavy ad hominem blather. At least you're predictable.
In other words, you're faking it, and you know it.
If you have enough money to pay for your crimes, you just pay your way out of the US justice system with settlements.
Unless that's not the case, and you've done something criminal while working, and you get charged with a crime and you go to jail. Which happens regularly even amongst very well-off circles. Why? Because when individuals do crimes, especially in industries that leave a huge paper trail, the evidence doesn't go away. So, instead of generalities, name the names of the people at GS who committed specific crimes, and name the crimes that the DoJ decided not to charge those individual people with. You know, since you haven't been under a rock, you'll have that list of DoJ-knew-who-committed-crimes-but-elected-not-to-charge people somewhere handy. Do tell.
So, if we wrote 90,000 articles about you, that would make you a criminal? Which specific people at GS committed which specific crimes for which they were not charged? You seem to know all about it, so let's hear some names, and the statutes under which those people should be criminally charged. I'm sure you're already typing that up, so we should see it in a moment or two.
why anybody would want to let a thief (you do remember 2008, right?) keep their money
If you have evidence of someone at GS actually stealing money, you should take that to the DoJ. But if you're just whining because you don't like the way the 2008 mess played out, and wish that we'd had a more total collapse just so other people could suffer more to make you feel better, then just mutter those things to yourself, instead of pretending you have secret knowledge of actual, specific crimes that thousands of investigators with multiple agencies couldn't spot.
No high level execs at Goldman Sachs went to jail
Which GS people committed which crimes for which they should be in prison? Please be specific.
Why would I give even even a penny to admitted criminals
Which officials with GS admitted to which crimes? Be specific.
You certainly don't have to do business with them. But if you have evidence of specific crimes that nobody else has managed to identify, you might want to pass those along to the DoJ.
the most minute workstation licenses
I don't understand what that means. Was the OS on that workstation licensed, or not? Is that more or less of a license than the one needed on another (bigger?) workstation?
Because if you actually pay for the licenses that the people who create the software you want say you need to buy if you want to use the things they've created, it's a non-issue. How is it a "shakedown" to require people who want your product to act according to the agreement required before they can use it? Is it a "shakedown" when you order three sandwiches and the chef asks you to actually pay for all three, instead of one? If you work 40 hours and expect your employer to pay for all of those hours, per your contract, is that you "shaking down" the employer?
If someone wants to show examples of (for example, Adobe) forcing a customer to pay for licenses to which they did not agree to purchase, representing seats they're not using, that's another matter. So let's see one of those (verified) stories, instead of characterizing the expectation that people honor their contracts as a shakedown.
No, what happens is that you carefully avoid addressing the point being made, and resort to juvenile ad hominem in order to lamely change the subject. Let's try this again.
Which is worse:
1) A small controlled burn that, alas, does indeed damage part of Wilderness Area X.
or
2) An out of control wildfire that COMPLETELY destroys Wilderness Area X, and dozens more just like it.
Pick one of those two. Ideally, with some intellectual integrity involved in the process.
So, controlled fires in small wilderness areas destroy more wildlife than huge, uncontrolled fires that burn those exact same areas and hundreds or thousands of times more acres full of wildlife. Gotcha. X = Bad. X*100 = Good.
I sure hope you merely whine about things you don't understand, rather than having any sort of role in establishing policy.
You're the one waxing histrionic with your florid prose.
No, you're the one who opened up by implying that firefighters are heading out to slaughter wildlife, instead of save it. Now you're saying that's just a rhetorical flourish or something, and you didn't really mean it?
Meanwhile, you're sticking with your notion that the people who use small controlled burns to prevent hugely destructive wildfires which destroy vast numbers of wild bees are out to ruin wildlife because they're foolish evil people who hate nature and whatnot. Your own holier-than-thou posturing is the problem here, not the work that's done to prevent massively destructive, habitat-killing out of control fires. It's people like you that, through railing against such actions, cause more destruction to natural habitats than anything the local firefighters would ever do.
I know! Let's immolate every last bit of native habitat for bees and other worthless wildlife!
Does it physically hurt to be that much of a moron? Or is it more of a numbing effect, so you don't really know that's how you are?
The entire point of small controlled brush burns is to prevent the leaping, raging wildfires that DO destroy huge swaths of habitat. The most destructive fires we see are those that take place in areas where small brush fires have been continually extinguished, preserving the fuel that nature would normally have burned off along the way through lightning-strike fires and the like. Of course you know this, and you're just being a troll for trolling's sake, because you're a tool of a troll. But what do you get out of it, psychologically? Just curious what makes people like you feel better once you've spouted some nonsense like that. Do you get congratulations from other people? Do you read it later and smile because you were so clever? Really, what makes it worth the trouble? How does adding more ignorant-sounding nonsense to the public discourse improve your waking hours, personally? Please explain.
Hold on, I'll check with some of the million or so people killed when the North Koreans tried to force their rosy form of socialism onto the south. I'm sure you're thinking that's all imaginary, of course.
Pretty clueless, aren't you. There's more going on and more at stake in the world than whether or not the NK is literally invading your neighborhood.
The difference is there's no magic involved.
The issue is the length of the telomeres in her DNA. Not the length of her eyelashes or whether wrinkles have suddenly disappeared.
Simulation Programmer = God
So, you're God every time you run a simulation? Or are you just deliberately using that word out of context for some reason?
But who's simulating God ?
Nobody. That's a myth, just like Santa Claus, the Year Of Linux On The Desktop, and other bits of wishful thinking. The simulation allows the simulated people in it to have imaginations and to believe in nonsense.