That's odd, you seem to want to lose any protection your government might offer you against foreign interference.
Kick out Kim Dot Fuckwit for being someone you don't want in the country if you don't like him, but don't roll over and drop your trousers for the US first.
Of course. This is why they need autopilot and sub-three second acceleration: Once Elon flips the toggle they become kinetic weapons that will avoid destroying each other.
Fortunately he'll still be able to travel to Europe and still have a wide choice of entry points that don't require him to tell the US government everything about his life.
And yet.. he owns a loss making golf course in Scotland.
Do you? I'm not certain but I'm fairly sure that I don't.
You're also missing the point that it makes a loss because it's doing things like buying helicopters from other parts of his business empire, almost certainly for tax purposes.
It is quite possible that his wealth is less than he claims but that isn't evidence that he isn't far wealthier than most people even aspire to, let alone have any hope of achieving.
Well, everybody can run a company; just start one up and off you go.
What, you want the high salary that goes with being a CEO? Best build that company up fast then.
Me, I work as hard as a blue-chip CEO but with a very different and somewhat less lucrative skillset. I don't work as hard as a small company owner and that's a very deliberate choice.
Being a manager is laborious too. I mean, shit, you have to talk to people. Yuck.
Well, aside from the obvious hypocrisy around being too drunk to consent but still being responsible for your actions, the passenger has clearly taken responsibility for his actions leaving just one person acting irresponsibly.
Since being drunk means you lack the judgement to agree to a pleasureable act even when you initiate it then I think it's reasonable to suggest that being drunk also means you lack the judgement to assess whether someone else is sober enough to drive or not.
Her dad may as well sue her estate, as after all she's the fuckwit that got into a car and drove it while drunk. In fact, her boss' estate should sue her estate as it was her illegal act that got him killed. I'm sure the father would welcome that.
Or maybe some people like being able to accelerate and it helps them drive safely.
Joining a motorway at 40? Fucking insanely dangerous. Accelerating up to 70 and joining at the speed of the traffic? Far safer.
Overtaking someone? Spend three minutes on the wrong side of the road or accelerate swiftly to pass them.
Want to get home before you die of old age? Accelerate away from the junction.
Stuck in stop-start traffic on a busy road? Stick on some music and enjoy the luxury. Shit, just because the car can accelerate doesn't mean you have to drive with your foot permanently flat to the floor.
there's a limit to what's practical and safe
Yes, there is. I personally recommend avoiding twin jet engines on a motorbike, but bluntly if it's road legal and you're willing to take the risk, go for it.
Why deny yourself the entertainment? Similarly, don't cut off a useful source of information.
If you don't hear the perspectives of the idiots you can't educate them.
Although I do struggle with Infowars. It's not even the content, it's the horrific inaccessibility of the content. There may occasionally actually be something worth reading on there, I'm just never going to want to find it.
So ok, apparently "It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US."
But as you've pointed out, he's not part of the executive or authorised to speak on their behalf. So nothing he says or promises can be considered relevant to the running of the country, so surely he's immediately in the clear purely because he is a private citizen.
If he has standing then he's not a private citizen. If he doesn't have standing then he's not engaging in diplomacy.
While I happily acknowledge that the Germans make a sizeable net contribution to the EU I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that all of their contributions to go the other countries that do not.
Rather than one of the few others that also makes a sizeable net contribution and keeps getting told it'll stop getting anything back, as though paying a corrupt Eurocrat bureaucracy to route the same money was actually better than just using it where it's needed.
Slashdot Mirror
That's odd, you seem to want to lose any protection your government might offer you against foreign interference.
Kick out Kim Dot Fuckwit for being someone you don't want in the country if you don't like him, but don't roll over and drop your trousers for the US first.
Just because someone is a lying cheating cunt does not make it ok to skip justice.
The law should protect everybody, even you.
Pissing off the US for refusing to extradite someone? Ok, there was Panama but the US aren't going to invade a first world country over that.
Frostiness, sure. But I'd rather have that than my government rolling over and shipping people over there to suffer the travesty they call justice.
No, I really look like this.
A police response that 'so often' kills innocent people is not justified, especially based on a single fucking phone call.
While the police reaction was justified, the situation so often turns to the "wrong" target dead
You appear to have contradicted yourself.
Of course. This is why they need autopilot and sub-three second acceleration: Once Elon flips the toggle they become kinetic weapons that will avoid destroying each other.
You'll short out the 'receive only' GPS technology?
Your approach to risk assessment is flawed.
No. You should say QWERTYUIOP and ask why the first email was sent on a keyboard missing the U key.
Fortunately he'll still be able to travel to Europe and still have a wide choice of entry points that don't require him to tell the US government everything about his life.
So was your pot legal to own in Arizona or not? Whether it was legal to purchase when you bought it is totally fucking irrelevant.
And yet.. he owns a loss making golf course in Scotland.
Do you? I'm not certain but I'm fairly sure that I don't.
You're also missing the point that it makes a loss because it's doing things like buying helicopters from other parts of his business empire, almost certainly for tax purposes.
It is quite possible that his wealth is less than he claims but that isn't evidence that he isn't far wealthier than most people even aspire to, let alone have any hope of achieving.
The resistance movement is based on empirical and historical evidence that trump is a demagogue. Trump is an illiterate person
Apparently the resistance movement is based on ignorance and stupidity.
The is the duty we have towards history
Does this egoistic hyperbole work with your friends? It's not really winning me over, sorry.
Well, everybody can run a company; just start one up and off you go.
What, you want the high salary that goes with being a CEO? Best build that company up fast then.
Me, I work as hard as a blue-chip CEO but with a very different and somewhat less lucrative skillset. I don't work as hard as a small company owner and that's a very deliberate choice.
Being a manager is laborious too. I mean, shit, you have to talk to people. Yuck.
Maybe because IT is a broad encompassing field that includes engineering operating systems and running an IT department.
Google? IT
VCE appliances? IT
Splunk? IT
High frequency trading? IT
It's all just IT. Deal with it.
Sure, try https://www.mozilla.org/en-GB/...
If that image of Torvalds didn't render in your version of Firefox then you may have local issues.
As one of the commentards on The Register highlighted, Git deviated and can easily be considered innovative.
So while much of his work has been taking 'good' and improving it to 'great' he's also capable of the sideways shift into a different future.
Hmm. Could you let the US law enforcement and judges know this?
So basically you're telling me 1.8 million people broke US law by signing a petition demanding not to give Trump a full scale State visit to the UK.
What a strange law. Going to make an airline rich carrying them all over to the US for the trial.
Well, aside from the obvious hypocrisy around being too drunk to consent but still being responsible for your actions, the passenger has clearly taken responsibility for his actions leaving just one person acting irresponsibly.
Fatally so.
I hope her dad is going to sue the bosses estate
On what grounds?
Since being drunk means you lack the judgement to agree to a pleasureable act even when you initiate it then I think it's reasonable to suggest that being drunk also means you lack the judgement to assess whether someone else is sober enough to drive or not.
Her dad may as well sue her estate, as after all she's the fuckwit that got into a car and drove it while drunk. In fact, her boss' estate should sue her estate as it was her illegal act that got him killed. I'm sure the father would welcome that.
Or maybe some people like being able to accelerate and it helps them drive safely.
Joining a motorway at 40? Fucking insanely dangerous. Accelerating up to 70 and joining at the speed of the traffic? Far safer.
Overtaking someone? Spend three minutes on the wrong side of the road or accelerate swiftly to pass them.
Want to get home before you die of old age? Accelerate away from the junction.
Stuck in stop-start traffic on a busy road? Stick on some music and enjoy the luxury. Shit, just because the car can accelerate doesn't mean you have to drive with your foot permanently flat to the floor.
there's a limit to what's practical and safe
Yes, there is. I personally recommend avoiding twin jet engines on a motorbike, but bluntly if it's road legal and you're willing to take the risk, go for it.
Bury the entire population of NYC, twice....then start bleating about paranoia.
When it's the Russians killing their own, I'm not sure the paranoia is justified.
I'm also not sure how Crimea was threatening to invade Russia. Or Georgia for that matter.
Shit, you'll be telling me next that the South China Sea is a paramilitary force intent on subjugating Guangxi.
Why deny yourself the entertainment?
Similarly, don't cut off a useful source of information.
If you don't hear the perspectives of the idiots you can't educate them.
Although I do struggle with Infowars. It's not even the content, it's the horrific inaccessibility of the content. There may occasionally actually be something worth reading on there, I'm just never going to want to find it.
I don't get this.
So ok, apparently "It's illegal for a private citizen to engage in diplomacy for the US."
But as you've pointed out, he's not part of the executive or authorised to speak on their behalf. So nothing he says or promises can be considered relevant to the running of the country, so surely he's immediately in the clear purely because he is a private citizen.
If he has standing then he's not a private citizen. If he doesn't have standing then he's not engaging in diplomacy.
I'm fucking confused.
While I happily acknowledge that the Germans make a sizeable net contribution to the EU I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that all of their contributions to go the other countries that do not.
Rather than one of the few others that also makes a sizeable net contribution and keeps getting told it'll stop getting anything back, as though paying a corrupt Eurocrat bureaucracy to route the same money was actually better than just using it where it's needed.