You are aware that being a CEO or running a bank are not, in and of themselves, illegal, right? Now that's not to say that people in those positions won't commit crimes, but so extreme is this particular fallacy that it's like trying to complain all car owners, or, shudder, all gun owners are criminals because owners of cars and guns have been known to commit crimes.
In other words, this populist shorthand used by malcontents to the right and the left of the political spectrum, along with reactionaries posing as libertarians, gets tiring because it demonstrates a lack of nuance and, frankly, what only be described as a over-simplified one-dimensional world view that may please the simpler minds, but doesn't really describe the real world in any significant way.
I'd say in some ways body building is an activity that in some ways is an antithesis of a healthy lifestyle with moderate exercise. Even excluding the nastier practices like steroids, with the enormous physical problems they can bring, which include, by the way, heart disease after long-term use, the diet and activities are driven purely towards developing muscle mass, with far less focus on cardiovascular workouts. A moderate amount of weightlifting is a good thing, if for no other reason that people with more muscle mass will tend to burn more calories, but to go to the extent that actual body builders go can lead to long term damage.
You can also add that it is running on a huge number of mobile devices, likely making it one of the most installed and in-use operating systems ever developed.
I just wear shorts and a t-shirt. About the only significant investment I made is to buy some proper running shoes, and stop wearing the Walmart specials, which were fucking up my feet, knees and back. When I have to walk in the dark or the rain, my wife bought my a high-vis vest so I don't get killed.
Believe me, I hate exercise. I get up at 6am to do my walk most days simply because I can't stand the idea of coming home after work and then slogging it. In general the idea of getting out there makes me miserable, and for the first ten minutes, if I had heavy armaments I'd probably blow up my neighborhood in frustration. But after about ten or fifteen minutes, I get into a rhythm, and the rest of the walk just sort of fades away. Sometimes I think deep thoughts, sometimes I just zone out, but one way or the other it doesn't seem that hard. Even shitty weather (and I live in coastal British Columbia, so it's rain, rain and more rain) just fades away after a bit.
The problem for me was in large part laziness and just the thought of having to get out and do the exercise seemed so overwhelming. But I was basically read the riot act by a couple of doctors that, now that I was in my 40s, I was entering that critical period when, if I didn't start shedding some weight, I was going to a prime candidate for all kinds of nasty things happening to me. So, seeing as I don't want to end up with a heart attack, or worse, a stroke, I got my literally fat ass out the door, and goddamnit if I don't hate it half the time, but anything is got to be better than ending up in an intensive care ward unable to move my left side, or possibly not even being able to write my name.
My justification for my walking regime comes down "Don't want to have a diabetes, and don't want a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years." It's not a pleasant motivator, to be sure, but my family's history of heart disease finally convinced me that I needed to change my diet and get my ass out the door. It's often not terribly pleasant, but I do find that during my long walks I actually do a lot of thinking, so I've found there's a bit of a mental payoff as well.
Oh, I did mention numerous studies that suggest being sedentary may contribute to dementia later in life. We may be built to conserve energy, but we're also built to actually do physical activity.
There's no fixing sociopaths. It is an underlying neurological condition that leads a person to have no empathy and be highly narcissistic. In general, the only thing that keeps sociopaths in line is to demonstrate to them that behaving properly is in their best interests. But unfortunately, modern finance at least temporarily rewards sociopaths, because they tend to be charismatic, make grand claims and even grander plans, and by the time anyone figures out that the sociopath was full of shit and saying whatever it took to get what they wanted, the company is already been damaged, key employees have already left (usually after a lot of bullying or worse by the sociopath).
It's largely why I feel anyone diagnoses as a sociopath should be banned from any position of authority; whether that be a manager, a police officer, judge, or politician.
I think a more pertinent question would be "When did you receive your diagnosis as a sociopath, and why did you choose financial scams as opposed to preying on young women between the ages of 18 and 30 and sexualy torturing them, murdering them and then taunting their relatives via anonymous letters to th Duluth News Tribune?"
Exactly. Assange has turned the organization into his personal podium, and much more dire, into his own tool of revenge. There was a time when it truly had few if any biases, but now that Assange wants to eke out his vengeance on enemies real and imagined, it's simply become a tool of one political faction in the US, or possibly even a tool of Russia, if some conspiracy theories are to be believed. But whatever Wikileaks could be, Assange's actions and his general persona have discredited it. The organization would be well placed to dump him, but the organization is now little more than Assange and his supplicants, most of the people who believed in its original cause are long gone.
They just keep making it up, over and over and over again. When you're a demented partisan, there's no claim so idiotic or outrageous that it isn't worth floating.
Apart from his positions, which seem to shift depending on the audience, the time of day, his blood sugar levels, position of Uranus as compared to Mercury, or whatever it is that shifts Trump's views, the chief issue as I see it is his temperament. The first debate showed that so very well, that he really cannot hold it together for more than a few minutes, and responds to be baiting in a sadly predictable fashion by lashing out, saying absurd things, being offensive, and in general behaving like a demented ass.
The person who commands the most powerful military the world has ever known shouldn't be someone who is so easily bruised, who so frequently lashes out, and in general simply doesn't seem to have the personal confidence to shut the fuck up and let his opponents bugger themselves over. Whatever you think of Clinton, she demonstrated one important aspect of good strategy, and that is to never interfere when your opponent is making a mistake. She's far from perfect, but she does in general seem capable of self control, and of some degree of self understanding.
If Assange's goal is to damage Clinton, then this faux-press release only helps her by discrediting Assange and Wikileaks. Since his previous "killer revelation" turned out to be some emails bad mouthing Sanders, it really was a "and...?" kind of moment. When you consider what Ted Cruz did DURING the RNC, it really came off as an example of hyperbole which only served to make Wikileaks look foolish.
Maybe Assange is finally cracking, maybe he has become yet another tired celebrity trying desperately to manufacture another 15 minutes, I have no idea. What I do know is that an organization that once revealed corruption in places like Turks and Caicos now seems hellbent on ruining itself with overhyped claims.
He was due to surrender to British authorities to be extradited to Sweden, so he almost certainly would still face charges in the UK. Now if the Swedish charges still stand, I'm certain British authorities would stay their own proceedings, but if Sweden drops their charges, I think the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard both would like to send a rather strong message to anyone else thinking of using an asylum scheme to evade arrest and/or extradition.
Let's imagine for a moment that Sweden concedes to Assange's offer, and at the end of it, they are dissatisfied with responses. What exactly would happen? Unless Ecuador agrees to allow him to be taken from the Embassy, all that's happened is Assange has once again jerked their chains.
And let's be even clearer. Even if Sweden abandons prosecution, Assange still violated British law, so the only two possible ends to this whole process at this point is his removal in handcuffs or in a coffin.
Anyone in Wikileaks who actually wanted the organization to carry on its mission is long gone. Assange didn't want an organization, he wanted a cult, and he's got one.
Slashdot Mirror
Good.
So that means Darth Vader is a Jesuit...
That actually kinda makes sense!
Washoe, the first chimp to learn sign language, did pass some signs on to another chimp:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You are aware that being a CEO or running a bank are not, in and of themselves, illegal, right? Now that's not to say that people in those positions won't commit crimes, but so extreme is this particular fallacy that it's like trying to complain all car owners, or, shudder, all gun owners are criminals because owners of cars and guns have been known to commit crimes.
In other words, this populist shorthand used by malcontents to the right and the left of the political spectrum, along with reactionaries posing as libertarians, gets tiring because it demonstrates a lack of nuance and, frankly, what only be described as a over-simplified one-dimensional world view that may please the simpler minds, but doesn't really describe the real world in any significant way.
In Saint Wars:
"Luke, I am the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost!"
I'd say in some ways body building is an activity that in some ways is an antithesis of a healthy lifestyle with moderate exercise. Even excluding the nastier practices like steroids, with the enormous physical problems they can bring, which include, by the way, heart disease after long-term use, the diet and activities are driven purely towards developing muscle mass, with far less focus on cardiovascular workouts. A moderate amount of weightlifting is a good thing, if for no other reason that people with more muscle mass will tend to burn more calories, but to go to the extent that actual body builders go can lead to long term damage.
Which is relevant how?
Wow, so it was Nixon who started using BUG_ON() wrong?
Bet it was that slimy rat Kissinger. I never trusted his patches.
You can also add that it is running on a huge number of mobile devices, likely making it one of the most installed and in-use operating systems ever developed.
I just wear shorts and a t-shirt. About the only significant investment I made is to buy some proper running shoes, and stop wearing the Walmart specials, which were fucking up my feet, knees and back. When I have to walk in the dark or the rain, my wife bought my a high-vis vest so I don't get killed.
Believe me, I hate exercise. I get up at 6am to do my walk most days simply because I can't stand the idea of coming home after work and then slogging it. In general the idea of getting out there makes me miserable, and for the first ten minutes, if I had heavy armaments I'd probably blow up my neighborhood in frustration. But after about ten or fifteen minutes, I get into a rhythm, and the rest of the walk just sort of fades away. Sometimes I think deep thoughts, sometimes I just zone out, but one way or the other it doesn't seem that hard. Even shitty weather (and I live in coastal British Columbia, so it's rain, rain and more rain) just fades away after a bit.
The problem for me was in large part laziness and just the thought of having to get out and do the exercise seemed so overwhelming. But I was basically read the riot act by a couple of doctors that, now that I was in my 40s, I was entering that critical period when, if I didn't start shedding some weight, I was going to a prime candidate for all kinds of nasty things happening to me. So, seeing as I don't want to end up with a heart attack, or worse, a stroke, I got my literally fat ass out the door, and goddamnit if I don't hate it half the time, but anything is got to be better than ending up in an intensive care ward unable to move my left side, or possibly not even being able to write my name.
My justification for my walking regime comes down "Don't want to have a diabetes, and don't want a heart attack or stroke in the next 10 years." It's not a pleasant motivator, to be sure, but my family's history of heart disease finally convinced me that I needed to change my diet and get my ass out the door. It's often not terribly pleasant, but I do find that during my long walks I actually do a lot of thinking, so I've found there's a bit of a mental payoff as well.
Oh, I did mention numerous studies that suggest being sedentary may contribute to dementia later in life. We may be built to conserve energy, but we're also built to actually do physical activity.
There's no fixing sociopaths. It is an underlying neurological condition that leads a person to have no empathy and be highly narcissistic. In general, the only thing that keeps sociopaths in line is to demonstrate to them that behaving properly is in their best interests. But unfortunately, modern finance at least temporarily rewards sociopaths, because they tend to be charismatic, make grand claims and even grander plans, and by the time anyone figures out that the sociopath was full of shit and saying whatever it took to get what they wanted, the company is already been damaged, key employees have already left (usually after a lot of bullying or worse by the sociopath).
It's largely why I feel anyone diagnoses as a sociopath should be banned from any position of authority; whether that be a manager, a police officer, judge, or politician.
I think a more pertinent question would be "When did you receive your diagnosis as a sociopath, and why did you choose financial scams as opposed to preying on young women between the ages of 18 and 30 and sexualy torturing them, murdering them and then taunting their relatives via anonymous letters to th Duluth News Tribune?"
Exactly. Assange has turned the organization into his personal podium, and much more dire, into his own tool of revenge. There was a time when it truly had few if any biases, but now that Assange wants to eke out his vengeance on enemies real and imagined, it's simply become a tool of one political faction in the US, or possibly even a tool of Russia, if some conspiracy theories are to be believed. But whatever Wikileaks could be, Assange's actions and his general persona have discredited it. The organization would be well placed to dump him, but the organization is now little more than Assange and his supplicants, most of the people who believed in its original cause are long gone.
Largely because I'm not vested in keeping up the facade of Assange as some sort of freedom fighter.
And further she knows that even if something damaging were released, Trump would bury it in the next news cycle by saying something awful or moronic.
But at this point, is there anybody beyond Trump's most dedicated supporters that still thinks Assange has any information of any significance?
They just keep making it up, over and over and over again. When you're a demented partisan, there's no claim so idiotic or outrageous that it isn't worth floating.
Apart from his positions, which seem to shift depending on the audience, the time of day, his blood sugar levels, position of Uranus as compared to Mercury, or whatever it is that shifts Trump's views, the chief issue as I see it is his temperament. The first debate showed that so very well, that he really cannot hold it together for more than a few minutes, and responds to be baiting in a sadly predictable fashion by lashing out, saying absurd things, being offensive, and in general behaving like a demented ass.
The person who commands the most powerful military the world has ever known shouldn't be someone who is so easily bruised, who so frequently lashes out, and in general simply doesn't seem to have the personal confidence to shut the fuck up and let his opponents bugger themselves over. Whatever you think of Clinton, she demonstrated one important aspect of good strategy, and that is to never interfere when your opponent is making a mistake. She's far from perfect, but she does in general seem capable of self control, and of some degree of self understanding.
If Assange's goal is to damage Clinton, then this faux-press release only helps her by discrediting Assange and Wikileaks. Since his previous "killer revelation" turned out to be some emails bad mouthing Sanders, it really was a "and...?" kind of moment. When you consider what Ted Cruz did DURING the RNC, it really came off as an example of hyperbole which only served to make Wikileaks look foolish.
Maybe Assange is finally cracking, maybe he has become yet another tired celebrity trying desperately to manufacture another 15 minutes, I have no idea. What I do know is that an organization that once revealed corruption in places like Turks and Caicos now seems hellbent on ruining itself with overhyped claims.
The only person discrediting Wikileaks is Assange himself.
At the very least he would be charged by British authorities with defying a court order. There's no way that Assange doesn't spend time in prison.
He was due to surrender to British authorities to be extradited to Sweden, so he almost certainly would still face charges in the UK. Now if the Swedish charges still stand, I'm certain British authorities would stay their own proceedings, but if Sweden drops their charges, I think the Crown Prosecution Service and Scotland Yard both would like to send a rather strong message to anyone else thinking of using an asylum scheme to evade arrest and/or extradition.
Let's imagine for a moment that Sweden concedes to Assange's offer, and at the end of it, they are dissatisfied with responses. What exactly would happen? Unless Ecuador agrees to allow him to be taken from the Embassy, all that's happened is Assange has once again jerked their chains.
And let's be even clearer. Even if Sweden abandons prosecution, Assange still violated British law, so the only two possible ends to this whole process at this point is his removal in handcuffs or in a coffin.
Russia isn't sheltering Snowden out of the goodness of their heart. It's a deliberate kick in the face.
Anyone in Wikileaks who actually wanted the organization to carry on its mission is long gone. Assange didn't want an organization, he wanted a cult, and he's got one.