And recalling the bias, political leanings, and conversations between FBI agents etc about how they feared a Trump presidency, and their connections to Clinton via campaign donations in one case to a wife, you think their interest in Trump was somehow NOT politically motivated?
Wow. Please, if you're not going to pay attention, at least lean back and be quiet.
All the refutations are founded on ignoring the instigation of the 'dossier'. It was political opposition research, largely fabricated, and the FISA court was not told that.
The presumption is that the FISA court would not have approved the warrant if it knew the true source of the dossier, and I believe that. If that's not true, then FISA needs to be eliminated.
Our team is facing going virtual at least by next year, when the move to a new building will force evaluating needs and we may not show a need for seats.
We already know that a weekly Skype team meeting will not be enough. I expect 3 of 6 will transfer, and I'll be stuck with the ones lacking in drive, and my manager will book space daily to avoid being isolated.
And I'll save 2.2 hours a day commuting, face interruptions every 20 minutes to 'please....', and eventually go virtual at Starbucks when I've finished the multi-monitor stuff.
I don't like virtual, but it will give me the excuse for even faster Internet service at home, a better chair, and generally a huge office space upgrade. And I can maintain relaitonships with the truly important coworkers, since they are already in New York, Greensboro, Montana, Gurgaon, Brighton, and Brisbane. I have never met most of them, and the few come here yearly for a party.
I'm not arguing against seat belt laws, these are reasonable and prudent. Helmet laws are also, but there is a pervasive culture that resists them. The issues are virtually identical, but the cultures are very different, and the arguments are mostly emotional, and so legislation is perceived as a blunt instrument.
There are some other issues with similar situations, marijuana as a salient example. There is no clear 'solution', merely choices.
"A motorcycle helmet only serves to increase your probability of surviving an accident. It does not reduce the hazard or risk to those around you."
My cousin., who yesterday passed away, spent more than 15 years being cared for in an institution because he was not wearing a helmet as he rode his motorcycle. The brain injury he suffered left he barely able to interact with others.
Should he have been compelled to wear a helmet by law? In hindsight, yes. But we do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight in all things, and for those riders I know who have never ever worn a helmet for over 50 years of riding, I have no retort save for 'it could happen to you'.
And some of them have executed legal documents intended to prevent resuscitation in the event of an injury that leaves them unable to survive without significant life support. Which solves nothing.
Seat belts are intended to restrain YOU, not to prevent you from becoming a missile and endangering others, but to minimize your injuries. Expanding the purpose beyond that is to claim a 1% solution is a driving factor. But head injuries in motorcycle accidents are virtually certain in the majority of instances. Not a good comparison.
I do this for work. Many of the problems I'm confronted with have no single, unique correct answer. It's a choice. In fact, this describes much application and computing system design.
But I do have a marginally useful amount of data, and some of it is in fact germane, so I'm not as bad off as 'If I have 600,000 users who need this feature, and it will cost $1,000 per user to maintain it for another year, how much will it cost me to deprecate the feature and force those users onto another platform?'
Or maybe it is. But just a 30 second analysis of these two questions in TFA made me think through some really wacko stuff, and lead me to give, as an answer, 'Um, if I knew --- and ---, I could answer this' where --- and --- were not the age of the captain or the principal.
thinking through what you would need, at a minimum, to solve a problem, or what you could make do with to solve it, is a useful exercise. Maybe not for pre-teens, but then again maybe so.
You don't give kids enough credit. American schools are undercutting our kids terribly.
No. I was in the military in 1974, sitting in my barracks in England, listening to radio reports of the happenings in Washington D.C.
I did not want to hear that my President, Richard Nixon, was resigning in disgrace, but it was so. And I did not want to hear that he had, at least, suborned perjury and obstruction of justice, but it seemed to be so. And I was hurt.
But I did not ignore the facts, nor did I reject them.
And that has guided my political beliefs since. Sadly, truth is challenged at every turn, and there is no monopoly on this for any particular viewpoint or philosophy. But I am not one of those, and your complaint that " they are so rare as to be statistically insignificant" is the call of those who claim that we all are wrong, they are right, and the error is ours alone.
Discerning the difference between truth and opinion is important - it is the foundation of sound political philosophy.
"Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013."
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."
"Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China."
I can give you more examples from otherwise acclaimed as reputable sources. If any of these you find literally incredible, please, share with us the foundations for discrediting them.
One of those 'facts' you claim " is a previously debunked conspiracy theory" is, indeed, factual, reported by several sources, of which I quoted only three.
Please, stop defending the indefensible by claiming that the facts are debunked in any meaningful way. At least limit your defense to either approval of their actions or, alternatively, approval of their goals.
"something that the government provides to its citizens"
Our federal government was instituted specifically on the premise that it granted nothing, but was intended to recognizedcertain inalienable rights.
Now we're discussing how our federal government should 'give' to citizens that which we, citizens, are beginning to consider to be 'rights'. Like information channels.
No, this is wrong. In fact, what we think of as 'rights' should be inalienable, and the Internet is not such a thing. Turn off the electricity and discover what 'rights' actually are.
Now, fairness and honesty might compel us to ensure that the airwaves licensed to commercial enterprises for the purposes of information delivery be used in the public interest, and that be examined periodically, those enterprises be held to account for their performance, and perhaps sometimes changes made to encourage use for the public good, but to describe these as 'rights' goes a step too far. And if you've just thought that our federal government perhaps should not be in that business, well, you've got a good point. A good discussion to have. We might change things.
It would seem to me to be a second or third option, unless you're oblivious to the foster world, and a lot of people are, or it isn't top of mind. AD would be Adoptive daughter, FFR. I don't have one of those yet.
And of all 101 acronyms, how many could reasonable refer to someone or something that would relate to phone possession?
Acronym Definition FD Fire Department - um, doh FD Friend - mebbe FD Finance Director - not really likely FD Flight Director - ditto FD Funeral Director - ditto ditto FD Family Doctor - um, triditto FD Familial Dysautonomia - so close, so far away FD Flyball Dog (canine performance title) - human? FD France-Diplomatie (French: France-Diplomacy) - individual? FD Force Démocrate (French political party)- ditto
Yeah, I see thefreedictionary nailed that. Make it 102, k? thx, bibi.
- Take a friend's cast-off. Around here, kids have a 6s or 7+ in their dresser drawer waiting for a reason to be turned on again. - Lift one from a friend. Yeah, some of the kids don't secure their phones well, and she knows a guy who can pwn an iPhone in 1 minute. - Buy one second-hand. A week's allowance, maybe less.
I pray she doesn't earn one by other means, but I can't yet lock her up. Probably never will be able to.
And yes, she could qualify for an 'Obamaphone', she's a ward of the State. And she needs a phone, so if she lost the one we know about we would install a landline one, since she needs to be able to communicate privately with case workers, courts,etc. I wonder if I can give her a wired phone bolted to the TV stand with a 35 foot cord. Harrr....
I'm facing the same thing. Taking away my FD's smartphone will be considered, by her, as torture.
So also is picking her up on time when her Wednesday group is finished, requiring her to finish her laundry in 24 hours, cleaning her room sufficiently to see 4 square feet of carpet clear of debris, taking her thyroid meds, and completing her school work - not earning passing grades, but completing assigned work.
It's hell, I know. But the smartphone is not good for her. Now, since she's managed to crack the screen less than 30 day after it was repaired/replaced, and refusing to use a protective case, it's getting very easy to take the phone away. More so because profanity and public insults are incompatible with privileges.
And yet, I know that if I take the phone, and the laptop, she will either go to work to crack the school firewall on her Chromebook, or more likely get a secret phone to circumvent my actions. I'll have to get the phone detector out and do regular searches, and watch her take the dog for a walk so she can dig the phone out of the bushes and keep up. Her social life is mostly SMS and game chats. Sadly, it's a negative influence on her well-being, and changing that is not easy, especially since she thinks it's normal-ish.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank Apple for this.
As well as smartphone domination, app stores, derivatives, and desktop publishing.
One out of four is pretty good in life, you know.
Clearly. And that explains the death of Apple computers at Hogwarts, since they numbered MacOS with Roman numerals.
Or something like that.
And recalling the bias, political leanings, and conversations between FBI agents etc about how they feared a Trump presidency, and their connections to Clinton via campaign donations in one case to a wife, you think their interest in Trump was somehow NOT politically motivated?
Wow. Please, if you're not going to pay attention, at least lean back and be quiet.
Have you even READ the memo?
You got it, plain and simple.
All the refutations are founded on ignoring the instigation of the 'dossier'. It was political opposition research, largely fabricated, and the FISA court was not told that.
The presumption is that the FISA court would not have approved the warrant if it knew the true source of the dossier, and I believe that. If that's not true, then FISA needs to be eliminated.
Our team is facing going virtual at least by next year, when the move to a new building will force evaluating needs and we may not show a need for seats.
We already know that a weekly Skype team meeting will not be enough. I expect 3 of 6 will transfer, and I'll be stuck with the ones lacking in drive, and my manager will book space daily to avoid being isolated.
And I'll save 2.2 hours a day commuting, face interruptions every 20 minutes to 'please....', and eventually go virtual at Starbucks when I've finished the multi-monitor stuff.
I don't like virtual, but it will give me the excuse for even faster Internet service at home, a better chair, and generally a huge office space upgrade. And I can maintain relaitonships with the truly important coworkers, since they are already in New York, Greensboro, Montana, Gurgaon, Brighton, and Brisbane. I have never met most of them, and the few come here yearly for a party.
'solid state'
wrong shape.
I'm not arguing against seat belt laws, these are reasonable and prudent. Helmet laws are also, but there is a pervasive culture that resists them. The issues are virtually identical, but the cultures are very different, and the arguments are mostly emotional, and so legislation is perceived as a blunt instrument.
There are some other issues with similar situations, marijuana as a salient example. There is no clear 'solution', merely choices.
"A motorcycle helmet only serves to increase your probability of surviving an accident. It does not reduce the hazard or risk to those around you."
My cousin., who yesterday passed away, spent more than 15 years being cared for in an institution because he was not wearing a helmet as he rode his motorcycle. The brain injury he suffered left he barely able to interact with others.
Should he have been compelled to wear a helmet by law? In hindsight, yes. But we do not enjoy the luxury of hindsight in all things, and for those riders I know who have never ever worn a helmet for over 50 years of riding, I have no retort save for 'it could happen to you'.
And some of them have executed legal documents intended to prevent resuscitation in the event of an injury that leaves them unable to survive without significant life support. Which solves nothing.
Seat belts are intended to restrain YOU, not to prevent you from becoming a missile and endangering others, but to minimize your injuries. Expanding the purpose beyond that is to claim a 1% solution is a driving factor. But head injuries in motorcycle accidents are virtually certain in the majority of instances. Not a good comparison.
Wait for $1k. Then watch another 24 hours.
BTW, for you, it's the pizza. For me, different answer.
Damn, that's easy. If the chili dog is in a bun, even easier.
Really, got to try harder. Make it a possum holding the chili dog, that's a challenging situation.
'Food' is one right answer. 'Coffee', 'Water', there are others.
See, it's not 'the' right answer. You got to Kobayashi this, or settle for being perpetually disappointed.
I do this for work. Many of the problems I'm confronted with have no single, unique correct answer. It's a choice. In fact, this describes much application and computing system design.
But I do have a marginally useful amount of data, and some of it is in fact germane, so I'm not as bad off as 'If I have 600,000 users who need this feature, and it will cost $1,000 per user to maintain it for another year, how much will it cost me to deprecate the feature and force those users onto another platform?'
Or maybe it is. But just a 30 second analysis of these two questions in TFA made me think through some really wacko stuff, and lead me to give, as an answer, 'Um, if I knew --- and ---, I could answer this' where --- and --- were not the age of the captain or the principal.
thinking through what you would need, at a minimum, to solve a problem, or what you could make do with to solve it, is a useful exercise. Maybe not for pre-teens, but then again maybe so.
You don't give kids enough credit. American schools are undercutting our kids terribly.
We haven't used the Second Box properly in some time. I'm not hopeful, but that is still an option, if we care to.
I don't lean.
So this is a revenue reducer. Excellent.
No. I was in the military in 1974, sitting in my barracks in England, listening to radio reports of the happenings in Washington D.C.
I did not want to hear that my President, Richard Nixon, was resigning in disgrace, but it was so. And I did not want to hear that he had, at least, suborned perjury and obstruction of justice, but it seemed to be so. And I was hurt.
But I did not ignore the facts, nor did I reject them.
And that has guided my political beliefs since. Sadly, truth is challenged at every turn, and there is no monopoly on this for any particular viewpoint or philosophy. But I am not one of those, and your complaint that " they are so rare as to be statistically insignificant" is the call of those who claim that we all are wrong, they are right, and the error is ours alone.
Discerning the difference between truth and opinion is important - it is the foundation of sound political philosophy.
1.
"Bill Clinton did receive $500,000 to deliver a speech at a Russian bank that was promoting Uranium One stock, according to The New York Times, and the company’s chairman donated $2.35 million to the foundation in four installments as Uranium One was being acquired by Rosatum between 2009 and 2013."
2.
"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority
stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium
One stock."
3.
"Where he once had drawn $150,000 for a typical address in the years following his presidency, Clinton saw a succession of staggering paydays for speeches in 2010 and 2011, including $500,000 paid by a Russian investment bank and $750,000 to address a telecom conference in China."
I can give you more examples from otherwise acclaimed as reputable sources. If any of these you find literally incredible, please, share with us the foundations for discrediting them.
One of those 'facts' you claim " is a previously debunked conspiracy theory" is, indeed, factual, reported by several sources, of which I quoted only three.
Please, stop defending the indefensible by claiming that the facts are debunked in any meaningful way. At least limit your defense to either approval of their actions or, alternatively, approval of their goals.
" a web page I have coded"
Oh, is this *your* page? Or your clients'?
"something that the government provides to its citizens"
Our federal government was instituted specifically on the premise that it granted nothing, but was intended to recognizedcertain inalienable rights.
Now we're discussing how our federal government should 'give' to citizens that which we, citizens, are beginning to consider to be 'rights'. Like information channels.
No, this is wrong. In fact, what we think of as 'rights' should be inalienable, and the Internet is not such a thing. Turn off the electricity and discover what 'rights' actually are.
Now, fairness and honesty might compel us to ensure that the airwaves licensed to commercial enterprises for the purposes of information delivery be used in the public interest, and that be examined periodically, those enterprises be held to account for their performance, and perhaps sometimes changes made to encourage use for the public good, but to describe these as 'rights' goes a step too far. And if you've just thought that our federal government perhaps should not be in that business, well, you've got a good point. A good discussion to have. We might change things.
It would seem to me to be a second or third option, unless you're oblivious to the foster world, and a lot of people are, or it isn't top of mind. AD would be Adoptive daughter, FFR. I don't have one of those yet.
And of all 101 acronyms, how many could reasonable refer to someone or something that would relate to phone possession?
Acronym Definition
FD Fire Department - um, doh
FD Friend - mebbe
FD Finance Director - not really likely
FD Flight Director - ditto
FD Funeral Director - ditto ditto
FD Family Doctor - um, triditto
FD Familial Dysautonomia - so close, so far away
FD Flyball Dog (canine performance title) - human?
FD France-Diplomatie (French: France-Diplomacy) - individual?
FD Force Démocrate (French political party)- ditto
Yeah, I see thefreedictionary nailed that. Make it 102, k? thx, bibi.
'earned a secret phone'
Um, this is done in a few simple ways:
- Take a friend's cast-off. Around here, kids have a 6s or 7+ in their dresser drawer waiting for a reason to be turned on again.
- Lift one from a friend. Yeah, some of the kids don't secure their phones well, and she knows a guy who can pwn an iPhone in 1 minute.
- Buy one second-hand. A week's allowance, maybe less.
I pray she doesn't earn one by other means, but I can't yet lock her up. Probably never will be able to.
And yes, she could qualify for an 'Obamaphone', she's a ward of the State. And she needs a phone, so if she lost the one we know about we would install a landline one, since she needs to be able to communicate privately with case workers, courts,etc. I wonder if I can give her a wired phone bolted to the TV stand with a 35 foot cord. Harrr....
Foster Daughter. Sheesh, that's more common than that. Get out more...
I'm facing the same thing. Taking away my FD's smartphone will be considered, by her, as torture.
So also is picking her up on time when her Wednesday group is finished, requiring her to finish her laundry in 24 hours, cleaning her room sufficiently to see 4 square feet of carpet clear of debris, taking her thyroid meds, and completing her school work - not earning passing grades, but completing assigned work.
It's hell, I know. But the smartphone is not good for her. Now, since she's managed to crack the screen less than 30 day after it was repaired/replaced, and refusing to use a protective case, it's getting very easy to take the phone away. More so because profanity and public insults are incompatible with privileges.
And yet, I know that if I take the phone, and the laptop, she will either go to work to crack the school firewall on her Chromebook, or more likely get a secret phone to circumvent my actions. I'll have to get the phone detector out and do regular searches, and watch her take the dog for a walk so she can dig the phone out of the bushes and keep up. Her social life is mostly SMS and game chats. Sadly, it's a negative influence on her well-being, and changing that is not easy, especially since she thinks it's normal-ish.