And I said nothing about Islam being a "race"--you did. This has little to do with religion in any case, and lots to do with cultural and ethnic groups. Likewise, it seems, with aversion to the practice.
Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government.
WRONG.
Article 1 of the US Constitution states,
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The "other Persons" being slaves, who were definitely *not* considered citizens.
Let me break this to you as gently as I possibly can:
One of these days—should you ever grow up—you'll come to realise that Larken is not merely full of horseshit, he's full of enough horseshit to rival the output of a cavalry regiment.
According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”
Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”
Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.
DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.
While it seems that all those who've put party before country have been Republicans, it's also true that not all those who put country before party are Democrats.
And why are they called rockets when they are guided?
What makes you think they should be called something else? A rocket is basically anything that is self-propelled using a rocket engine. Some sources claim that a missile is always guided. However, many other sources that state that missiles can be guided or unguided, and given the prevalence of the term "guided missile", I tend to agree with the latter. Note also that a missile does not necessarily have to be rocket-powered, and that there's plenty of examples of the payload launched from a catapult, trebuchet, sling, etc., being referred to as a missile.
The moral of the story: Never rely on StackExchange as a sole authority; always verify any answers you find there by direct testing or from other trusted sources.
None of those things are going to pay for anybody's rent or groceries.
Ability to call emergency services such as the police - which is a big reason they flee their home (i.e. - violence by thugs, gangs, etc.).
So, by your own admission, they're not actually "economic refugees" at all. Thanks for playing!
I personally don't care much for the idea, but I also didn't confuse my personal preferences with expert knowledge, either. Instead, I did some research. And it turns out that there is considerable scientific debate regarding the likely effects of marriages between first cousins on their offspring and, in particular, whether they're sufficient to merit banning such unions, which, I must admit, surprises me.
And I said nothing about Islam being a "race"--you did. This has little to do with religion in any case, and lots to do with cultural and ethnic groups. Likewise, it seems, with aversion to the practice.
And your problem is...? Other than that you seem to think women can only be nurses, but not doctors?
The BBC has long since addressed this error. Quit wasting your time--or at least quit wasting ours.
Actually, Trump has it backwards.
...and/or are genetic dead ends...
No, not racist at all, are you?
The ones who've assimilated likely didn't bother to vote in that election, even if they retain dual citizenship.
WHAT benefits?
English, is the native language of America.
Nobody can say otherwise with a straight face.
Someone already did, and provided evidence, so you promptly stuck your fingers in your ears and replied with "LALALALALALA-I can't hear you!"
Thanks for playing, though.
Most illegal immigrants spend little in taxes compared to what they get in welfare.
Baloney. I'm pretty sure we discussed this recently and discovered that you have to be able to prove you're in the country legally in order to get most forms of assistance.
Because it was understood as common f'ing sense that non-citizens not be counted toward representation in government.
WRONG.
Article 1 of the US Constitution states,
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The "other Persons" being slaves, who were definitely *not* considered citizens.
Your posts are not being taken down. You need to learn how Slashdot and the moderation system actually work. And cacheing.
Let me break this to you as gently as I possibly can:
One of these days—should you ever grow up—you'll come to realise that Larken is not merely full of horseshit, he's full of enough horseshit to rival the output of a cavalry regiment.
Look again. That's not BeauHD.
Never heard of the guy before today, and it turns out there's a really good reason for that--he's a wacko.
The worst of Objectivism *and* Creationism rolled up into one tidy package, pretty much. So, yes, a nutjob, pretty much.
See also: Pseudolaw.
Can Sacrificing Privacy Stomp Out Disinformation Online?
According to Dipayan Piku Ghosh, a digital-privacy expert at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,“the commercial interests of internet platforms like Facebook and those of disinformation operators are at some points aligned.”
Ghosh specified that keeping users engaged for as long as possible is a core goal for both internet companies and entities spreading false information. “For the internet platform, it allows them to create more ad space and collect more data,” he said on Thursday at the Aspen Ideas Festival, which is co-hosted by the Aspen Institute and The Atlantic. “For disinformation operators, it allows them to try to persuade the individual. And that alignment is what we need to really try to solve.”
Renée DiResta, who works as Data for Democracy’s head of policy, offered one possible solution—but it’s a bitter remedy for those who would wish to hold their data close: “Really, the solution ... is better information sharing,” she said on Thursday.
DiResta’s vision of online truth enforcement consists of a “triangle” of independent and academic researchers, researchers at big tech companies, and the government, all exchanging what they know and working in concert to stomp out disinformation. For some, that’s a chilling proposition—after all, it was data sharing between academics and Facebook that allowed Cambridge Analytica to create 30 million psychographic voter profiles without users’ consent. But without data and analysis flowing between each point of the triangle, DiResta argued, there’s no hope of triumphing over nefarious actors in a disinformation arms race.
It's not as as clear-cut as that.
While it seems that all those who've put party before country have been Republicans, it's also true that not all those who put country before party are Democrats.
All those hits are for Fox News, the Washington Examiner, ACLJ, CNS, ... all the usual outlets for disinformation.
Get back to us when there's an actual story reported in actual news media.
FYI: I actually read Russian pretty well--no need for you to translate, although the effort's appreciated.
Are you kidding me? Woohoo, yet another reason to hate systemd.
Whoooooooshsh...
Well, it does tend to guarantee that what I receive on my end is in fact the same as what was transmitted by the server, no?
If I'm misunderstanding anything, feel free to educate me.
In reality, it is propaganda being fed to them by a cabal of rich evildoers who work behind the scenes to manipulate the country.
Sounds an awful lot like Breitbart and the Koch brothers to me.
Sounds to me like someone's admitting that he *wants* to perform on-the-fly content modification. Care to let us know why that might be?
And why are they called rockets when they are guided?
What makes you think they should be called something else? A rocket is basically anything that is self-propelled using a rocket engine. Some sources claim that a missile is always guided. However, many other sources that state that missiles can be guided or unguided, and given the prevalence of the term "guided missile", I tend to agree with the latter. Note also that a missile does not necessarily have to be rocket-powered, and that there's plenty of examples of the payload launched from a catapult, trebuchet, sling, etc., being referred to as a missile.
The moral of the story: Never rely on StackExchange as a sole authority; always verify any answers you find there by direct testing or from other trusted sources.