You're against an expression of free speech because you don't like the comments. You have a great future as a censor, one of the few careers with ever expanding opportunities.
This is a blatant falsehood. Please do not insult monkeys and baboons, it is well accepted that politicians are invertebrates and have no recent relationships to primates.
$20,000 is not the median savings account size for all Americans. They have no where that amount of liquid capital. The national median household net worth is about $90,000 the majority of which is in homes and retirement. I doubt most Americans even have a savings account.
What a pile of nonsense, the CIA, the military and the executive continuously lied to congress about the state of the war. Any limitations placed on action in Vietnam were done to keep the Chinese out of the war, the military had already learned that mistake in North Korea. The fact is, had they been honest about the cost of the war, they would not have been allowed to start it in the first place.
These are now public documents and they have no right to tell you what you're supposed to read outside of work. If too many accept these type of authoritarian attempts at control, we are all screwed. Stating that you cannot read these documents which are now public is both immoral and probably illegal. It is an presumption of power to which they have no right.
Not supposed to my ass. They have the right to these documents, just not from Air Force computers. These are now public documents and the Air Force has no right to determine what Air Force personnel read on their own time.
However, if the Air Force allows reading other news sites from Air Force computers, this move is very petty and immature.
Dialectic is not widely taught because it is harder to manipulate a population that understands it. It gives one the ability to recognize manipulative or misleading rhetoric. Politicians, corporations, lobbyists and ad agencies would be at a loss for words.
No, like almost all politicians, he is saying what those in power who supported his election want him to say. The constituents (voters/citizens) are usually just pawns in a system that is for the most part rigged (like here in the good old U.S. of A. - perhaps not quite as rigged as Iran, but rigged none the less).
But you are absolutely right in that it is deliberate deception. If he even wanted to tell the truth he would not remain in office long. Anyone who rises to his level already knows what he is expected to say.
Perhaps it takes a sizable ego to risk your safety and future to perform what you see is a necessity. He is seriously challenging power which is risky and rare. Perhaps you expect those doing the right thing to be a bit too hollywoodesque, to have no major character flaws.
Most so called "legitimate journalists" are simply parroting the press releases they've been fed by the government or corporations. They are little more than public relations lackeys protecting the interests of their owners and advertisers. They are more like barber surgeons attaching leaches because that is the accepted "truth".
These releases may help change the nature of government. They may help prevent or lessen future conflict.
So far absolutely no negative effects have yet been shown except as embarrassments to those engaging in dubious practices and policies.
The fact is that governments are often not acting for the good of all or a majority of their citizens but that of a small number of powerful elites.
In a way this is a very democratic action as it returns power in the form of information to the public for which these governments are technically the servants. It may allow them to make better choices in the future, It may make government officials act more responsibly because if they don't it may come back to haunt them.
Probably because they did not have enough evidence. Since they spent years on the investigation they had to justify the astronomical costs of the investigation, They may have created "crimes" that would never have really happened without their intervention.
It's BS because if he owned the phones he had every right to do whatever he wanted to them. Why should Apple (or anyone) have the right to prevent someone they do not have a contract with from modifying a device they do not have ownership of? This lessens the rights of all owners of the devices because it means they cannot get the price the market will pay. His right to jail break a phone is not limited to a single phone. His right is not eliminated just because it may hurt Apple's business model.
If he knowingly received stolen property then that is already a crime. If they cannot prove it then they should not charge him.
He may have been railroaded into pleading guilty because he may not have been able to pay the legal expenses to fight it.
In any case this is not a legal precedent because it is just a plea.
In "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" refers to the state constitutions not the U.S. Constitution. Neither treaties nor federal laws may be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions and laws are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties.
The U.S. Constitution is supreme over all other legislation.
The numbers you are reporting are only the NIP budgets, i.e. 43.5 billion on 2007, 49.8 billion in 2009 and 52.1 billion in 2010. The more than 50 billion in 2007 was just speculation. The >80 billion budget for 2010 fully (supposedly) discloses the total of all of the secret budgets as well.
Since the 2009 budget was approved in 2008, most of the increases happened under Bush. This does not excuse the Democrats for allowing the budget to grow even more, but the process has been entrenched for years.
The very existence of these secret budgets is a threat to what smidgen of democracy remains.
The recipe writers may be indeed smarter than the average Taco Bell employee, but the result is still garbage. Using Taco Bell as an analogy is a bad choice unless you're assuming that the outcome is of poor quality.
Slashdot Mirror
You're against an expression of free speech because you don't like the comments. You have a great future as a censor, one of the few careers with ever expanding opportunities.
"SEU95 is inserted in the back orifice" - no thanks
The timing of this is interesting. Are they hoping to take away heat from poor old Rupert?
This is a blatant falsehood. Please do not insult monkeys and baboons, it is well accepted that politicians are invertebrates and have no recent relationships to primates.
Precise timing is likely to be difficult. It would immediately set off an explosive detector and probably over-excite any nearby bomb sniffing dogs.
$20,000 is not the median savings account size for all Americans. They have no where that amount of liquid capital. The national median household net worth is about $90,000 the majority of which is in homes and retirement. I doubt most Americans even have a savings account.
No problem, the newly elected house of representatives can fix that.
Bullshit, he's being tortured to get him to say what they want him to say.
What a pile of nonsense, the CIA, the military and the executive continuously lied to congress about the state of the war. Any limitations placed on action in Vietnam were done to keep the Chinese out of the war, the military had already learned that mistake in North Korea. The fact is, had they been honest about the cost of the war, they would not have been allowed to start it in the first place.
70 per month implies 3,360,000 per month or 40 million per year.
It is not communism, it is fascism.
Maybe they can work out a deal with the TSA.
These are now public documents and they have no right to tell you what you're supposed to read outside of work. If too many accept these type of authoritarian attempts at control, we are all screwed. Stating that you cannot read these documents which are now public is both immoral and probably illegal. It is an presumption of power to which they have no right.
I think they can make the documents unclassified now.
Not supposed to my ass. They have the right to these documents, just not from Air Force computers. These are now public documents and the Air Force has no right to determine what Air Force personnel read on their own time.
However, if the Air Force allows reading other news sites from Air Force computers, this move is very petty and immature.
Dialectic is not widely taught because it is harder to manipulate a population that understands it. It gives one the ability to recognize manipulative or misleading rhetoric. Politicians, corporations, lobbyists and ad agencies would be at a loss for words.
But you are absolutely right in that it is deliberate deception. If he even wanted to tell the truth he would not remain in office long. Anyone who rises to his level already knows what he is expected to say.
Perhaps it takes a sizable ego to risk your safety and future to perform what you see is a necessity. He is seriously challenging power which is risky and rare. Perhaps you expect those doing the right thing to be a bit too hollywoodesque, to have no major character flaws.
Most so called "legitimate journalists" are simply parroting the press releases they've been fed by the government or corporations. They are little more than public relations lackeys protecting the interests of their owners and advertisers. They are more like barber surgeons attaching leaches because that is the accepted "truth".
These releases may help change the nature of government. They may help prevent or lessen future conflict.
So far absolutely no negative effects have yet been shown except as embarrassments to those engaging in dubious practices and policies.
The fact is that governments are often not acting for the good of all or a majority of their citizens but that of a small number of powerful elites.
In a way this is a very democratic action as it returns power in the form of information to the public for which these governments are technically the servants. It may allow them to make better choices in the future, It may make government officials act more responsibly because if they don't it may come back to haunt them.
Probably because they did not have enough evidence. Since they spent years on the investigation they had to justify the astronomical costs of the investigation, They may have created "crimes" that would never have really happened without their intervention.
It's BS because if he owned the phones he had every right to do whatever he wanted to them. Why should Apple (or anyone) have the right to prevent someone they do not have a contract with from modifying a device they do not have ownership of? This lessens the rights of all owners of the devices because it means they cannot get the price the market will pay. His right to jail break a phone is not limited to a single phone. His right is not eliminated just because it may hurt Apple's business model.
If he knowingly received stolen property then that is already a crime. If they cannot prove it then they should not charge him.
He may have been railroaded into pleading guilty because he may not have been able to pay the legal expenses to fight it.
In any case this is not a legal precedent because it is just a plea.
In "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding" refers to the state constitutions not the U.S. Constitution. Neither treaties nor federal laws may be in conflict with the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions and laws are subordinate to the U.S. Constitution, federal laws and treaties.
The U.S. Constitution is supreme over all other legislation.
The numbers you are reporting are only the NIP budgets, i.e. 43.5 billion on 2007, 49.8 billion in 2009 and 52.1 billion in 2010. The more than 50 billion in 2007 was just speculation. The >80 billion budget for 2010 fully (supposedly) discloses the total of all of the secret budgets as well.
Since the 2009 budget was approved in 2008, most of the increases happened under Bush. This does not excuse the Democrats for allowing the budget to grow even more, but the process has been entrenched for years.
The very existence of these secret budgets is a threat to what smidgen of democracy remains.
The recipe writers may be indeed smarter than the average Taco Bell employee, but the result is still garbage. Using Taco Bell as an analogy is a bad choice unless you're assuming that the outcome is of poor quality.