It is, in fact, the very worst kind of bigotry, and it has a name; institutional racism.
People who remember when Democrats were lynching blacks in the south might disagree about which form of racism or bigotry is the worst.
Also, I note that nimbius didn't describe any racism, he just says it was there. There are reasons other than "brown people" why someone might not get promoted.
If the model only uses constants found in this list, the data from the past is already cooked into the algorithms it uses. It really needs to do better than 62% verifying (not predicting) itself using the past.
Or, possibly, past data was funny in some way and the model is superior, in which case call me in 2 years to tell me that it is off to a good start.
I'm tempted to give you the benefit of doubt here and pretend that you are attempting to make a lame joke, but I suspect that you really just don't know anything about the structure of our federal government.
No, she's been hiding emails from Congress by giving them to the FBI. The FBI isn't interested developing a case against her because Obama's involvement would then come out. And the DOJ sure as hell isn't going to prosecute him. Net result, FBI/DOJ grants immunity to everyone in the area and then destroy the evidence, even thought everyone involved is fully aware that Congress (remember them? co-equal branch of the federal governement?) has issued a subpoena for all such evidence.
Your UID suggests that you might be too old to care very much about each passing fad. Project Include appears to be the corporate version of Dr. Kevorkian. Any company that is looking to exit this reality consults with them, and they are prescribed a poison pill. The poison then shuts down the productive organs of the company, transfers shareholder wealth to SJW causes, and the company then gradually fades away.
Hmm. Did Twitter work with them recently? Or is that the work of a copycat?
So, the ADL and the press are going to stop lying about and slandering Pepe? That is good news.
Oh, not that? They are going to try the anti-racist skinhead gambit? What do you mean you've never heard of anti-racist skinheads? Well, crap, I guess there may be a reason for that, and one that doesn't bode well for this nonsense.
Despite all of the evidence available to you, you still think that these polls are attempting to solicit information?
Go find some more data. Those same polls are plotted in other ways, such as a time series. The left/right shifts on those polls are clearly dictated by the needs of the Clinton campaign and are not the product of randomness. The samples are carefully selected in advance to obtain (roughly) the desired result. Also, people predicted the twists and turns of the polling months and years ago, before anyone knew who the candidates were going to be.
Trump is going to win by 6-12 million popular votes. (I've sen estimates up past 20 million vote spreads, but those are based on circumstances that I don't expect to happen, so I stick with very conservative numbers.) That could translate into a narrow electoral majority on the low end, all the way up to 45+ states on the high end. Bookmark this and come back on the 9th. You don't believe me today, but you will then.
You know that no one believes that right? You probably don't even believe it. The media spews Russia-FUD a lot, but so far Hillary hadn't claimed that there is anything false in them. Podesta hasn't claimed that they are false either.
These emails are almost certainly "leaks" in the normal sense of the word: the product of insiders. The Hillary emails are probably coming from FBI agents. And if they are not coming from there, the FBI almost certainly has copies of most of them, which is why she doesn't dare say that they are false.
A magnetron is a lousy way to project microwaves. You can't collimate the output for shit.
What you need is a big phased array. The Navy guys I knew swore that the Aegis cruisers could cook a pilot in the cockpit of a passing jet if they ever painted it at full power. I've never believed that. (because of how jets are built, not because I had doubts about the raw output power those things were capable of) But I can easily see it making a very bad day for anything with a visible (in the emitter's view) antenna between about a quarter inch and 2 or 3 inches long.
No shit. I mean what kind of moron goes into productive business and employs tens of thousands of people to build an empire over many decades when the easy money is in being a corrupt politician selling your office and country out to the highest bidder?
Just FYI, my posts are the ones that say "Orgasmatron" at the top. Lemme quote myself a bit here, everything I've had to say about the evidence:
Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.
The lawyer is not to participate in the destruction of evidence.
In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.
Hmm. No one confused here but you. Speaking of confusion:
Post 53075403 links to an article then says "The evidence was never under her control. She didn't cause it to be lost."
And yet, in the linked article, I found "Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.".
Hmm. What is the next step after getting permission to transport the evidence to NYC? Really only two things can happen next. Either she took possession of the evidence and took it to the NYC lab, or she didn't bother getting it tested at all.
Let me tell you now that the second option doesn't make her look any better than the first. She says that the expert looked at it, so if she actually take it to NYC, she needs to explain why she pretended that she had.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? My old quake handle and slashdot nickname has never been more relevant than this election year. Here is what Hillary thinks of you, her enabler:
I twist the truth, I rule the world, my crown is called deceit I am the emperor of lies, you grovel at my feet I rob you and I slaughter you, your downfall is my gain And still you play the sycophant, and revel in your pain And all my promises are lies, all my love is hate I am the politician, and I decide your fate
You know that there are other versions of this story, right? In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.
Also, quote from the article you linked:
Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.
I'm always very careful to avoid criticizing her for defending the guy. It is indeed a lawyer's job and ethical duty to defend their client.
That duty has limits though. The lawyer is not to lie or use defenses that they know to be false. The lawyer is not to participate in the destruction of evidence. I'm not sure about the professional standards of the day, but attacking the character of a 12 year old girl and accusing her of "wanting" an older man to rape her into a coma seems sketchy to me.
And if that lawyer has a soul, I sure as fuck don't want to hear her cackling about the case a few years later.
I know lawyers, including a few full time public defenders. To be a full time public defender requires an extreme belief in the system, because they are paid peanuts for working 60+ hour weeks carrying a caseload that would kill two regular lawyers. Even those true believers struggle at times with the morality of it all, and they stay well clear of the unethical behavior that seems to define Hillary Clinton's life. They don't laugh about these hard cases. They cry.
Oh wow. Snopes calls it "Mostly False" because some of the ancillary details aren't right. Stop the fucking presses! Someone tell the New York Times that snopes is choking on Hillary's dick again!
Also newsworthy, Politifact studiously avoided learning any details of the case that might contradict the headline they assigned to it in advance. Consider this one example:
She is "discussing the crime lab's accidental destruction of DNA evidence that tied (the accused man, Thomas Alfred) Taylor to the crime." Destruction that led the prosecution to seek a plea deal on a lesser charge, according to the article.
Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.
And did you catch the extreme spin they put on the polygraph statement? Every human on the planet that understands English and is more than about 5 years old understood exactly what she meant. But not snopes! Nope, snopes spun that into a general laugh about the polygraph supporting the defense instead of the prosecution, because Hillary, with her extensive first-case-ever experience "knew" that the polygraph usually helps the prosecutor. That sounds like a good reason to laugh about losing all faith in polygraphs. Right? Right?
Snopes and politifact are Marxist political opinion sites that only pretend to be interested in facts. (We can add Google to that list.) No one but fellow Marxists actually believes them any more. You remember the one where Trump and Sanders both quoted the same figure for black youth unemployment and they scored the Sanders one true and the Trump one false? Classic.
Oh, and mustn't forget NBC. New to this game, but catching up fast.
But good work ignoring the bulk of my post to concentrate on the one tiny part that you imagined you already had a good answer to.
When google was founded, their motto was "Don't be evil". When they made it big time, they built new facilities and moved their offices. Sadly, the motto was damaged in the process, and they were only able to salvage the last two words.
She was scared to accuse the Attorney General of the state (who already had a body count). Also, in 1978, inviting a man up to her room could plausibly be taken the wrong way. Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier. If Juanita had formally accused Bill of rape, she'd have been on the receiving end of all that, and probably much more.
Still, she didn't keep completely silent, she told a few people, including a nurse that found her in bed a few hours after the attack, and some other close friends. Some of those people blabbed, and word got out. People hid tape recorders when talking to her in hopes of getting her to drop her guard and talk about it. She refused to talk about it, saying "you can't get to him, and I'm not going to ruin my good name to do it... here's just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he's just too vicious".
After something like seven years of trying to get her to talk, the story was openly circulating in the tabloids with her name attached, and she finally relented.
If you've seen any of the early interviews with her, it is pretty obvious why she didn't want to talk about it for 20 years. It is still a very painful memory for her, and she is visibly shaken when talking about it.
There are some notable elements missing from Juanita's story. Until Trump tricked them, the press wouldn't touch her story with a 10 foot pole because it is missing these elements, which apparently dictate which stories are credible: * plagarism from other famous sexual assault cases and/or pop songs * robotic monotone retelling * claims that her attacker had superhuman strength (to bend a solid aluminum airline seat) * total silence even to her closest friends until the last few weeks before an election * contradictory stories told to close friends at the time of the incident * The One Ring to become invisible to slip past guard/chaperones stationed outside the door * laughably public setting * heavy involvement with the other candidate's campaign
Slashdot Mirror
I notice that you are asking this question anonymously...
People who remember when Democrats were lynching blacks in the south might disagree about which form of racism or bigotry is the worst.
Also, I note that nimbius didn't describe any racism, he just says it was there. There are reasons other than "brown people" why someone might not get promoted.
I just got some popcorn. Very much looking forward to hearing how these gasses know when their time is up.
If the model only uses constants found in this list, the data from the past is already cooked into the algorithms it uses. It really needs to do better than 62% verifying (not predicting) itself using the past.
Or, possibly, past data was funny in some way and the model is superior, in which case call me in 2 years to tell me that it is off to a good start.
I'm tempted to give you the benefit of doubt here and pretend that you are attempting to make a lame joke, but I suspect that you really just don't know anything about the structure of our federal government.
No, she's been hiding emails from Congress by giving them to the FBI. The FBI isn't interested developing a case against her because Obama's involvement would then come out. And the DOJ sure as hell isn't going to prosecute him. Net result, FBI/DOJ grants immunity to everyone in the area and then destroy the evidence, even thought everyone involved is fully aware that Congress (remember them? co-equal branch of the federal governement?) has issued a subpoena for all such evidence.
Please do try to keep up.
Your UID suggests that you might be too old to care very much about each passing fad. Project Include appears to be the corporate version of Dr. Kevorkian. Any company that is looking to exit this reality consults with them, and they are prescribed a poison pill. The poison then shuts down the productive organs of the company, transfers shareholder wealth to SJW causes, and the company then gradually fades away.
Hmm. Did Twitter work with them recently? Or is that the work of a copycat?
So, the ADL and the press are going to stop lying about and slandering Pepe? That is good news.
Oh, not that? They are going to try the anti-racist skinhead gambit? What do you mean you've never heard of anti-racist skinheads? Well, crap, I guess there may be a reason for that, and one that doesn't bode well for this nonsense.
Despite all of the evidence available to you, you still think that these polls are attempting to solicit information?
Go find some more data. Those same polls are plotted in other ways, such as a time series. The left/right shifts on those polls are clearly dictated by the needs of the Clinton campaign and are not the product of randomness. The samples are carefully selected in advance to obtain (roughly) the desired result. Also, people predicted the twists and turns of the polling months and years ago, before anyone knew who the candidates were going to be.
Trump is going to win by 6-12 million popular votes. (I've sen estimates up past 20 million vote spreads, but those are based on circumstances that I don't expect to happen, so I stick with very conservative numbers.) That could translate into a narrow electoral majority on the low end, all the way up to 45+ states on the high end. Bookmark this and come back on the 9th. You don't believe me today, but you will then.
You know that no one believes that right? You probably don't even believe it. The media spews Russia-FUD a lot, but so far Hillary hadn't claimed that there is anything false in them. Podesta hasn't claimed that they are false either.
These emails are almost certainly "leaks" in the normal sense of the word: the product of insiders. The Hillary emails are probably coming from FBI agents. And if they are not coming from there, the FBI almost certainly has copies of most of them, which is why she doesn't dare say that they are false.
Not at all. Just estimate the turnout and find that spot on the regression lines.
If you need help estimating the turnout, look around for Trump and Hillary signs. Or ponder the turnout in the party primaries.
Reading a password out of a leaked email is not "hacked".
You like data?
Immerse yourself.
Journalists? Ha! You haven't been paying attention.
Don't worry though. The internet verified the leaks.
I think he just got the name wrong. Clearly that quote should be attributed to Wilbur Wright, who did die in 1912.
source
A magnetron is a lousy way to project microwaves. You can't collimate the output for shit.
What you need is a big phased array. The Navy guys I knew swore that the Aegis cruisers could cook a pilot in the cockpit of a passing jet if they ever painted it at full power. I've never believed that. (because of how jets are built, not because I had doubts about the raw output power those things were capable of) But I can easily see it making a very bad day for anything with a visible (in the emitter's view) antenna between about a quarter inch and 2 or 3 inches long.
No shit. I mean what kind of moron goes into productive business and employs tens of thousands of people to build an empire over many decades when the easy money is in being a corrupt politician selling your office and country out to the highest bidder?
Democrat Logic
Just FYI, my posts are the ones that say "Orgasmatron" at the top. Lemme quote myself a bit here, everything I've had to say about the evidence:
Hmm. No one confused here but you. Speaking of confusion:
Post 53075403 links to an article then says "The evidence was never under her control. She didn't cause it to be lost."
And yet, in the linked article, I found "Clinton said she got permission from the court to take the underwear to a renowned forensics expert in New York City to see if he could confirm that the evidence had been invalidated.".
Hmm. What is the next step after getting permission to transport the evidence to NYC? Really only two things can happen next. Either she took possession of the evidence and took it to the NYC lab, or she didn't bother getting it tested at all.
Let me tell you now that the second option doesn't make her look any better than the first. She says that the expert looked at it, so if she actually take it to NYC, she needs to explain why she pretended that she had.
Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? My old quake handle and slashdot nickname has never been more relevant than this election year. Here is what Hillary thinks of you, her enabler:
You know that there are other versions of this story, right? In some versions of the story, the state crime lab only cut out half of the blood spot, leaving enough for a retest. The defense then cut a sample from an unknown location, didn't find anything, then lost the remainder of the article so it was impossible to tell if the defense had actually tested the same spot or not.
Also, quote from the article you linked:
I'm always very careful to avoid criticizing her for defending the guy. It is indeed a lawyer's job and ethical duty to defend their client.
That duty has limits though. The lawyer is not to lie or use defenses that they know to be false. The lawyer is not to participate in the destruction of evidence. I'm not sure about the professional standards of the day, but attacking the character of a 12 year old girl and accusing her of "wanting" an older man to rape her into a coma seems sketchy to me.
And if that lawyer has a soul, I sure as fuck don't want to hear her cackling about the case a few years later.
I know lawyers, including a few full time public defenders. To be a full time public defender requires an extreme belief in the system, because they are paid peanuts for working 60+ hour weeks carrying a caseload that would kill two regular lawyers. Even those true believers struggle at times with the morality of it all, and they stay well clear of the unethical behavior that seems to define Hillary Clinton's life. They don't laugh about these hard cases. They cry.
Oh wow. Snopes calls it "Mostly False" because some of the ancillary details aren't right. Stop the fucking presses! Someone tell the New York Times that snopes is choking on Hillary's dick again!
Also newsworthy, Politifact studiously avoided learning any details of the case that might contradict the headline they assigned to it in advance. Consider this one example:
Which crime lab destroyed the evidence? Her crime lab destroyed the evidence. The state crime lab had a match already and handed the intact evidence over to the defense, which promptly destroyed it. Then, in a move that only a lawyer could love, the defense asked that the key evidence be thrown out because after destroying it, they were unable to verify the state lab's conclusion.
And did you catch the extreme spin they put on the polygraph statement? Every human on the planet that understands English and is more than about 5 years old understood exactly what she meant. But not snopes! Nope, snopes spun that into a general laugh about the polygraph supporting the defense instead of the prosecution, because Hillary, with her extensive first-case-ever experience "knew" that the polygraph usually helps the prosecutor. That sounds like a good reason to laugh about losing all faith in polygraphs. Right? Right?
Snopes and politifact are Marxist political opinion sites that only pretend to be interested in facts. (We can add Google to that list.) No one but fellow Marxists actually believes them any more. You remember the one where Trump and Sanders both quoted the same figure for black youth unemployment and they scored the Sanders one true and the Trump one false? Classic.
Oh, and mustn't forget NBC. New to this game, but catching up fast.
But good work ignoring the bulk of my post to concentrate on the one tiny part that you imagined you already had a good answer to.
When google was founded, their motto was "Don't be evil". When they made it big time, they built new facilities and moved their offices. Sadly, the motto was damaged in the process, and they were only able to salvage the last two words.
She was scared to accuse the Attorney General of the state (who already had a body count). Also, in 1978, inviting a man up to her room could plausibly be taken the wrong way. Remember what Hillary had already done to Kathy Shelton a few years earlier. If Juanita had formally accused Bill of rape, she'd have been on the receiving end of all that, and probably much more.
Still, she didn't keep completely silent, she told a few people, including a nurse that found her in bed a few hours after the attack, and some other close friends. Some of those people blabbed, and word got out. People hid tape recorders when talking to her in hopes of getting her to drop her guard and talk about it. She refused to talk about it, saying "you can't get to him, and I'm not going to ruin my good name to do it ... here's just absolutely no way anyone can get to him, he's just too vicious".
After something like seven years of trying to get her to talk, the story was openly circulating in the tabloids with her name attached, and she finally relented.
If you've seen any of the early interviews with her, it is pretty obvious why she didn't want to talk about it for 20 years. It is still a very painful memory for her, and she is visibly shaken when talking about it.
There are some notable elements missing from Juanita's story. Until Trump tricked them, the press wouldn't touch her story with a 10 foot pole because it is missing these elements, which apparently dictate which stories are credible:
* plagarism from other famous sexual assault cases and/or pop songs
* robotic monotone retelling
* claims that her attacker had superhuman strength (to bend a solid aluminum airline seat)
* total silence even to her closest friends until the last few weeks before an election
* contradictory stories told to close friends at the time of the incident
* The One Ring to become invisible to slip past guard/chaperones stationed outside the door
* laughably public setting
* heavy involvement with the other candidate's campaign
Assuming that Russia or Russians were actually involved, what is appropriate here? Gift basket? Flowers? How do I chip in for the card?