We could have been fighting an army with accurate and effective ballistic missiles, jet fighters, an infantry armed with select-fire assault rifles and already highly effective (and probably further refined) man-portable squad automatic weapon (the MG-42).
Well, it's not like the other countries didn't develop their own stuff. US already had a semi-auto as the main infantry rifle for several years before the war (while Germans started it with a bolt-action). And USSR had already settled on SVT-40 as the next main infantry rifle, and the only reason why that didn't happen was because Mosins were cheaper and faster to produce once SHTF, and they needed quantity over all else.
To remind, the 7.62x39mm round was developed by the Soviets as early as 1943, and work on the first prototypes of weapons to be chambered in it began almost immediately. SKS actually saw some very limited action in the last month of the war, and AK showed up shortly after.
Looking at tanks, Germany had been lagged at the beginning of the war (esp. against Soviets), briefly caught up with Panther, then went lagging again against newer Soviet designs.
They were definitely ahead of the rest as far as jet fighters and missiles go, but even so both British and Americans were already well underway, and British jets actually saw combat. Soviets were lagging the most, but still catching up fast.
And so on on most points. Basically, in many cases the perceived German innovative superiority is just a myth, and in cases where it was real, it was chased pretty closely by some or all adversaries. Giving Germany 5 more years would mean that all sides would be fielding armies with select-fire assault rifles, SAWs, jet fighters, and missiles. And in the end it would still be won by the side that can outproduce the other, which would be allies (and specifically the combo of US+USSR).
Regardless of what was and was not classified, email and all other communications pertaining to the official duty should go to government run servers, where they can be properly archived and later requested by the public by means of FOIA, and by people with proper clearances and/or warrants who need to know. Attempting to deliberately circumvent FOIA is in and of itself sufficiently big deal to disqualify her from holding any public office, in my opinion.
The "Tea Party" stands on the platform of rabid insanity. They're perfectly fine with increasing the federal government so long as said increase pertains to invading Iran, for example, or instituting and enforcing a ban on abortions.
This willingness to cut corners on matters with very serious real-world consequences for the sake of personal convenience speaks volumes about what kind of president she'd make if elected.
I happen to be personally acquainted with quite a few people who are very stereotypically right wing, and it's not a name recognition problem. They know about all those other candidates, they watched the debates etc. They just like what Trump is saying more, because he's actually saying what they've all been thinking all along.
What makes you believe he didn't go to his manager with that extension and showed what it does first, and tried to explain why it's a problem?
This being Facebook, though, I expect that they simply laughed him out of the room with, "privacy? who the fuck cares about privacy?". And so he published it to show who cares.
Can you coherently explain why, when they wanted to ban alcohol consumption on federal level, that took a Constitutional amendment; but when they wanted to ban other substances, somehow, magically, it's just a simple law?
Where exactly in the Constitution does it grant Congress the authority to regulate the growth and consumption of drugs (or anything else) that doesn't cross the state boundary?
Specifically, this is Administrative Violations Codex, article 6.13, titled "Propaganda of narcotics, psychotropic substances or their precursors, plants containing narcotic or psychotropic substances or their precursors, and their parts containing narcotic or psychotropic substances or their precursors, and new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances".
Note that it is not a part of criminal law, so the most you can get is a fine and a few days in jail. But this is also the legal basis for blocking websites that publish this info. And there is talk among the parliamentarians to make it an actual felony.
No, not any data. Like OP said, the privacy of individuals constituting the company is still legally protected. But aggregate data like that, which describes the company as a whole without divulging specific records for individuals, does not infringe on anyone's privacy (well, unless it's a company of only a few people).
t in my opinion you could reasonably be charged with hate speech based on country of origin.
In US? No, you cannot. Look up "imminent lawless action" for the current standard. It's a very high bar; high enough that open hate speech on a KKK rally didn't meet it.
BTW, what do you do if you live in a society where mockery of your rulers can lead to a long prison term, or even death? I don't think snark is going to be all that effective in combating tyranny.
That's when you get a gun, make a few bombs, and go do a revolution.
The reason why people stopped bothering to check is that there were enough very damning exposures about real, undeniable and unambiguous government overreaches of power in this territory that we're basically operating on the presumption of guilt now: any time any government official says anything about "national security" and "terrorism" in one sentence, I automatically assume that they're trying to rob me of yet another individual right or freedom that I still possess. Yes, I may occasionally be wrong, but I'm still right more often than I'm wrong. And if the govt wants things to change in this court of public opinion, they should start by cleaning up their act, admitting their past mistakes, and acknowledging that they were wrong, and that the whole "omg terrorism" rhetoric caused more harm than the terrorism that it was supposed to deal with in the past 15 years.
H1Bs are not foreign labor, since by definition they work here in US, and participate in the same labor market (and other markets - they have to rent or buy housing here & pay property taxes if they do, pay for their food and other things they consume & pay sales taxes on it etc).
And why do you think it's appropriate to not just allow, but outright force private companies to discriminate according to citizenship? Didn't you just say you're for meritocracy? Well, let the one with the most merit take the job. In fact, chances are good that they'll apply for citizenship as soon as they're eligible anyway.
All black lives matter is discriminatory because it is race based discriminatory protection by race.
Did you take logic 101 in school or uni? "Black lives matter" does not imply "Only black lives matter", and consequently, does not imply "not all lives matter". One is a subset of the other. All lives matter, but this seems to be ignored particularly often for black lives, hence focusing the attention there.
A corporation always has owners who are human -- sometimes they are indirect.
And the privacy of those owners (or any other employee or shareholder) is not infringed by publishing aggregated statistics on how many persons of a given race the company hires.
Given the size, you can just pack two (three,...) as needed.
Re:MacArthur, Nimitz, Eisenhower, etc All Opposed
on
Twilight of the Bomb
·
· Score: 1
There is an argument that the Emperor referred to the bombs because it allowed him (and, by extension, the entire nation) to save face while surrendering, as opposed to a conventional defeat which they were facing otherwise. Thing is, we'll never really know. Quote mining on this subject doesn't really get you far because there are also quotes indicating that it was the Soviet threat that was the final straw, rather than the bomb, e.g. from Suzuki (emphasis mine):
"If we miss the chance today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."
"The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks.”
"I was finally convinced that the moment had at last arrived to end the war, since what we had been afraid of and tried to avoid at any cost had finally come about, in view of the urgency of the situation, I finally made up my mind to be in charge of the termination of the war, taking all the responsibility upon myself." (from his autobiography, upon hearing of the Soviet invasion)
Also, the fact that the emergency council meeting (on which the surrender was decided) was hastily summoned immediately in response to the invasion, but not to the Hiroshima bombing, is also interesting.
You seem to be under the assumption that there's actually some code running behind those tiles. There's not. Unlike Android widgets or Vista/Win7 gadgets, tiles are passive in a sense that they don't pull data, data is pushed onto them. It can be done by a background task within an app (in which case the tile is basically just another rendering surface), or it can be a push notification. Either way, the communication is one-way - the app, directly or indirectly, tells Windows what should be displayed on the tile, but it cannot e.g. capture input from it.
I may be missing something, but my Win10 start menu still shows folders as, well, folders. Which you can expand if you want to, exactly the way it has been since Vista. It doesn't lump everything that's inside those folders into the top level list. So aside from the tiles (which you can just remove, and then resize the menu to reclaim the wasted space), I don't see what exactly is actually different from Win7, aside from the theming.
From trying to follow the discussions about all this stuff on Reddit itself (I'm not active there so I have very little context for all of it, and have to look things up as I go along), it seems that the majority of people who are annoyed at the changes are more annoyed at the admins dodging the discussion on what exactly the new rules are, as opposed to the rules themselves. E.g. a lot of people basically said that they're okay with r/coontown/ being banned, but that admins should just be honest and say they're banning them as hate speech, or because they bring undesired publicity. As opposed to beating around the bush with vague definitions such as "annoy other redditors" and all that, especially when many other subreddits that seem to also fall in the same bucket under a straight interpretation of what the admins say are untouched with no particular rhyme or reason.
Animal rights activists will use carefully edited imagery showing normal agricultural practices structured in a way that will shock the public and cause harm to farmers generally and possibly individual farmers specifically.
Presumably the farmers can then present their own case (which can even be as simple as "you do want steak, do you?"; or, perhaps, "you do want steak that doesn't cost $50, do you?"). If the public is still too shocked, enough so to boycott the manufacturers and/or push their representative to enact the appropriate animal protection laws, well, it's too bad for the farmers, but it's democracy working as it should.
Slashdot Mirror
We could have been fighting an army with accurate and effective ballistic missiles, jet fighters, an infantry armed with select-fire assault rifles and already highly effective (and probably further refined) man-portable squad automatic weapon (the MG-42).
Well, it's not like the other countries didn't develop their own stuff. US already had a semi-auto as the main infantry rifle for several years before the war (while Germans started it with a bolt-action). And USSR had already settled on SVT-40 as the next main infantry rifle, and the only reason why that didn't happen was because Mosins were cheaper and faster to produce once SHTF, and they needed quantity over all else.
To remind, the 7.62x39mm round was developed by the Soviets as early as 1943, and work on the first prototypes of weapons to be chambered in it began almost immediately. SKS actually saw some very limited action in the last month of the war, and AK showed up shortly after.
Looking at tanks, Germany had been lagged at the beginning of the war (esp. against Soviets), briefly caught up with Panther, then went lagging again against newer Soviet designs.
They were definitely ahead of the rest as far as jet fighters and missiles go, but even so both British and Americans were already well underway, and British jets actually saw combat. Soviets were lagging the most, but still catching up fast.
And so on on most points. Basically, in many cases the perceived German innovative superiority is just a myth, and in cases where it was real, it was chased pretty closely by some or all adversaries. Giving Germany 5 more years would mean that all sides would be fielding armies with select-fire assault rifles, SAWs, jet fighters, and missiles. And in the end it would still be won by the side that can outproduce the other, which would be allies (and specifically the combo of US+USSR).
And yet it clearly does a vertical take-off in the video which OP linked to.
Regardless of what was and was not classified, email and all other communications pertaining to the official duty should go to government run servers, where they can be properly archived and later requested by the public by means of FOIA, and by people with proper clearances and/or warrants who need to know. Attempting to deliberately circumvent FOIA is in and of itself sufficiently big deal to disqualify her from holding any public office, in my opinion.
selling out our allies to terrorist states.
I'm trying to figure out which part refers to Israel, and which part to Saudi Arabia. Can you clarify?
The "Tea Party" stands on the platform of rabid insanity. They're perfectly fine with increasing the federal government so long as said increase pertains to invading Iran, for example, or instituting and enforcing a ban on abortions.
This willingness to cut corners on matters with very serious real-world consequences for the sake of personal convenience speaks volumes about what kind of president she'd make if elected.
I happen to be personally acquainted with quite a few people who are very stereotypically right wing, and it's not a name recognition problem. They know about all those other candidates, they watched the debates etc. They just like what Trump is saying more, because he's actually saying what they've all been thinking all along.
What makes you believe he didn't go to his manager with that extension and showed what it does first, and tried to explain why it's a problem?
This being Facebook, though, I expect that they simply laughed him out of the room with, "privacy? who the fuck cares about privacy?". And so he published it to show who cares.
Can you coherently explain why, when they wanted to ban alcohol consumption on federal level, that took a Constitutional amendment; but when they wanted to ban other substances, somehow, magically, it's just a simple law?
Where exactly in the Constitution does it grant Congress the authority to regulate the growth and consumption of drugs (or anything else) that doesn't cross the state boundary?
To clarify, Reddit introduced an IP-based block for this post, such that Russian IP addresses get 403. Consequently, RKN unblocked it.
So basically Reddit is helping Russian authorities censor.
Russia, duh.
Specifically, this is Administrative Violations Codex, article 6.13, titled "Propaganda of narcotics, psychotropic substances or their precursors, plants containing narcotic or psychotropic substances or their precursors, and their parts containing narcotic or psychotropic substances or their precursors, and new potentially dangerous psychoactive substances".
Note that it is not a part of criminal law, so the most you can get is a fine and a few days in jail. But this is also the legal basis for blocking websites that publish this info. And there is talk among the parliamentarians to make it an actual felony.
No, not any data. Like OP said, the privacy of individuals constituting the company is still legally protected. But aggregate data like that, which describes the company as a whole without divulging specific records for individuals, does not infringe on anyone's privacy (well, unless it's a company of only a few people).
t in my opinion you could reasonably be charged with hate speech based on country of origin.
In US? No, you cannot. Look up "imminent lawless action" for the current standard. It's a very high bar; high enough that open hate speech on a KKK rally didn't meet it.
BTW, what do you do if you live in a society where mockery of your rulers can lead to a long prison term, or even death? I don't think snark is going to be all that effective in combating tyranny.
That's when you get a gun, make a few bombs, and go do a revolution.
The reason why people stopped bothering to check is that there were enough very damning exposures about real, undeniable and unambiguous government overreaches of power in this territory that we're basically operating on the presumption of guilt now: any time any government official says anything about "national security" and "terrorism" in one sentence, I automatically assume that they're trying to rob me of yet another individual right or freedom that I still possess. Yes, I may occasionally be wrong, but I'm still right more often than I'm wrong. And if the govt wants things to change in this court of public opinion, they should start by cleaning up their act, admitting their past mistakes, and acknowledging that they were wrong, and that the whole "omg terrorism" rhetoric caused more harm than the terrorism that it was supposed to deal with in the past 15 years.
H1Bs are not foreign labor, since by definition they work here in US, and participate in the same labor market (and other markets - they have to rent or buy housing here & pay property taxes if they do, pay for their food and other things they consume & pay sales taxes on it etc).
And why do you think it's appropriate to not just allow, but outright force private companies to discriminate according to citizenship? Didn't you just say you're for meritocracy? Well, let the one with the most merit take the job. In fact, chances are good that they'll apply for citizenship as soon as they're eligible anyway.
All black lives matter is discriminatory because it is race based discriminatory protection by race.
Did you take logic 101 in school or uni? "Black lives matter" does not imply "Only black lives matter", and consequently, does not imply "not all lives matter". One is a subset of the other. All lives matter, but this seems to be ignored particularly often for black lives, hence focusing the attention there.
A corporation always has owners who are human -- sometimes they are indirect.
And the privacy of those owners (or any other employee or shareholder) is not infringed by publishing aggregated statistics on how many persons of a given race the company hires.
Given the size, you can just pack two (three, ...) as needed.
There is an argument that the Emperor referred to the bombs because it allowed him (and, by extension, the entire nation) to save face while surrendering, as opposed to a conventional defeat which they were facing otherwise. Thing is, we'll never really know. Quote mining on this subject doesn't really get you far because there are also quotes indicating that it was the Soviet threat that was the final straw, rather than the bomb, e.g. from Suzuki (emphasis mine):
"If we miss the chance today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."
"The atomic bomb provided an additional reason for surrender as well as an extremely favorable opportunity to commence peace talks.”
"I was finally convinced that the moment had at last arrived to end the war, since what we had been afraid of and tried to avoid at any cost had finally come about, in view of the urgency of the situation, I finally made up my mind to be in charge of the termination of the war, taking all the responsibility upon myself." (from his autobiography, upon hearing of the Soviet invasion)
Also, the fact that the emergency council meeting (on which the surrender was decided) was hastily summoned immediately in response to the invasion, but not to the Hiroshima bombing, is also interesting.
You seem to be under the assumption that there's actually some code running behind those tiles. There's not. Unlike Android widgets or Vista/Win7 gadgets, tiles are passive in a sense that they don't pull data, data is pushed onto them. It can be done by a background task within an app (in which case the tile is basically just another rendering surface), or it can be a push notification. Either way, the communication is one-way - the app, directly or indirectly, tells Windows what should be displayed on the tile, but it cannot e.g. capture input from it.
I may be missing something, but my Win10 start menu still shows folders as, well, folders. Which you can expand if you want to, exactly the way it has been since Vista. It doesn't lump everything that's inside those folders into the top level list. So aside from the tiles (which you can just remove, and then resize the menu to reclaim the wasted space), I don't see what exactly is actually different from Win7, aside from the theming.
From trying to follow the discussions about all this stuff on Reddit itself (I'm not active there so I have very little context for all of it, and have to look things up as I go along), it seems that the majority of people who are annoyed at the changes are more annoyed at the admins dodging the discussion on what exactly the new rules are, as opposed to the rules themselves. E.g. a lot of people basically said that they're okay with r/coontown/ being banned, but that admins should just be honest and say they're banning them as hate speech, or because they bring undesired publicity. As opposed to beating around the bush with vague definitions such as "annoy other redditors" and all that, especially when many other subreddits that seem to also fall in the same bucket under a straight interpretation of what the admins say are untouched with no particular rhyme or reason.
And, from what I understand, more whites are killed by cops annually than black are
In absolute numbers, yes. Per capita (which is the relevant metric here), no, not even close.
Animal rights activists will use carefully edited imagery showing normal agricultural practices structured in a way that will shock the public and cause harm to farmers generally and possibly individual farmers specifically.
Presumably the farmers can then present their own case (which can even be as simple as "you do want steak, do you?"; or, perhaps, "you do want steak that doesn't cost $50, do you?"). If the public is still too shocked, enough so to boycott the manufacturers and/or push their representative to enact the appropriate animal protection laws, well, it's too bad for the farmers, but it's democracy working as it should.