SInce when are businesses/universities desk lines in either the white OR yellow pages?
Even better. They're on the fucking campus directory which is on the fucking website.
And if you were to give me a name and a company, I could come up with a desk extension in about five minutes, without subterfuge or resorting to Facebook.
Please. The guy probably gives out business cards with his office phone number to random girls (or boys) at the bar. If you have a business and your phone number is a super double top secret, you're probably not going to stay in business long.
Simpler fix. Convict Mark Zuckerberg of lying to Congress.
I'm all for that, but he's going to have to get in line behind at least one current nominee for the Supreme Court and over a dozen members of the Trump administration.
What actually happened was they got it from somebody who had your phone number in their contact list, either on their computer (email), or on their phone.
Or, as in this specific case, sine it's an office number of a landline, it's available in any of dozens of public databases. Like the phone book.
I'm all for privacy, but are people too young to remember phone books? Let's not get hysterical. "Facebook figured out that I'm in California from a photo of me and my car with California license plates in front of Disneyland! OMG! Whatever shall we do?"
Landline numbers have been available in criss-cross directories since WWII. That information is public. I mean, it's the guy's office for chrissake. He's in the damn Yellow Pages.
As for TFA claiming that giving Facebook a number you think is private is helping other people you don't want to find you, to find you -- the person who targeted the ad had to GIVE THEM THE NUMBER for it to target the recipient. In other words, Facebook did not help anyone find this elusive professor, the person trying to "find him" already had his private phone number.
Younger people don't realize that there used to be these books published, and given to everyone for free known as "phone books", and they listed your name, address and phone number. Anybody could look you up in these free books and know your location and how to call you. There are still "criss-cross directories" available at every public library where you can look up a street and get the phone number of people who live on that street. They're probably a lot less useful now that people are giving up land lines, but still...
Don't give Facebook your phone number. It's not required. Every few months they ask, "Do you want to give us your phone number to help us secure your account?" and I answer, "Fuck off, Facebook", as I click the "No" button and move on.
Yeah, as far back as 1869 and 1906 - long before glyphosate was invented. The term was coined in 2006 because the rate of loss had nearly doubled - some 40 years after the introduction of glyphosate and following a period of nearly 20 years of near stable populations but had already been assigned a name "disappearing disease" back in 1965 - 5 years before the introduction of glyphosate. (From same source)
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically started in 2006. A true skeptic would say, "it was first observed in 2006". A shill would say, "it started in 2006".
I'm just trying to help you use more precise language.
and bee colony disorder is a relatively recent phenomenon starting around 2006
You can say the phenomenon was first reported in 2006, but you cannot say that it started in 2006. It's like saying that Alzheimer's disease didn't exist until Aloysius Alzheimer identified it in 1901.
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
The article also makes clear that Cohen didn't name Trump in his plea deals nor submitted testimony
You are correct. Cohen's testimony didn't mention Trump by name. It mentioned an "unnamed federal candidate that Cohen worked for". Since Cohen never worked for any other candidate, who do you think it's referring to?
That's why Trump is referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator". This is a common formulation in criminal cases that involve elected officials. I remember when an earlier incarnation of Trump, Rod Blagojevich, was indicted and everybody was finking on each other. They didn't name the other parties in the conspiracy because they were being indicted separately (or cooperating), and Justice Department guidelines don't allow testimony to name anyone who is not a defendant in that case. Since the testimony is evidenciary in a case that is still being built, brick by brick, against Donald Trump, he's not a defendant until he's indicted. But make no mistake: Cohen implicated Trump in several felonies, and is still talking his head off to prosecutors in some room in the Southern District of New York.
You are intentionally ignoring 13 points. Fine I'll play one last time: There's two groups. If an event happens more than 50% of the time to one of the two groups, per incident of event, that group is more likely to experience that event.
Gosh, don't they teach basic statistics any more? I guess this is how Trump got elected. First of all, it doesn't "happen more than 50% of the time to one of the two groups". If you re-read it (and then again), you'll see that this one group (white people) make up 50% of the population that is shot by cops. But, since white people make up 70% of the population, it means they are underrepresented in police shootings. Whereas, since black people are 12.3% of the population, yet make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, they are MORE THAN TWICE AS FUCKING LIKELY TO BE SHOT BY A COP AS A WHITE PERSON. You are conflating "it happens more often" with "it is more likely to happen to".
Go ahead and try. You wont because you can'. You doesn't understand 52 is greater than 26 and Trump is going eight long years because of your denial.
Wow. Just wow. This guy is walking around absolutely certain of something and lacks the basic reasoning ability to understand why he's dead wrong. And he gets a vote. Probably thinks he's above-average intelligence, too.
Of the 1,146 and 1,092 victims of police violence in 2015 and 2016, respectively, the authors found 52 percent were white, 26 percent were black, and 17 percent were Hispanic.
Black people make up 12.3% of the US population. White people make up 70% of the population. Now pay attention. If black people make up 12.3% of the population and make up 26% of the people shot by police, and white people are approx. 70% of the population and make up 52% of those shot by police, that means black people are more than twice as likely to be shot by police than white people.
White people are more likely to be shot.
See above. Go through it step by step. It's simple statistics, bro.
White people aren't more likely to be shot by police than black people.
Since actual numbers and math show conclusively that black people are 2.7 times more likely to be shot by police than white people, I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list. You are the reason fake news is a problem. For those of you who still believe that white people are more likely to be shot by police, here is the best available resource on people killed in encounters with law enforcement. You can search the database itself, if you'd like, and even download the raw data.
Until Mueller actually presents some kind of evidence
Testimony, is by definition, evidence. We now have sworn testimony that Trump participated in multiple felonies. This testimony was from Trump's own long-time lawyer.
My main problem with Pandora, if I have one is that it seems to keep picking the same songs for me. Even if start a new station with new seeds- they all always end up playing the same 200 songs or so.
Yeah, for some reason, that's a problem with all the services. The only way it makes sense is if they have better royalty deals with certain publishers or artists than others, and try to encourage plays of their music over others.
I cannot figure out why every single streaming service has trouble randomizing a 5,000 song playlist. Or a 500 song playlist, for that matter. I've even tried downloading my entire 5,000 song playlist, and when I hit shuffle, I can predict five of the first 10 songs I'll hear. That's unacceptable.
I've raised this issue in the support forums, but they'll tell me that it's truly random and I should believe them and not my own ears for the past 10 years of almost daily listening. So now I've taken to try to fool their service into giving me varied music, by creating radio stations from varied playlists but that only works to a certain extent.
I do like Pandora at $5 a month because it works on all kinds of devices. I have a friend that had been working on her playlist for months.... I entered her favorite band into Pandora and had it make a playlist, and it had anticipated so many songs that she liked and had in her playlist she kept looking at her phone to confirm it wasn't playing from hers. So, let's hope SiriusXM doesn't destroy Pandora.
Of all the streaming services, Pandora seems to handle multi-genre playlists better than the others.
I'm still kind of surprised that Google and Spotify, with all they know about me and my listening habits, can't seem to figure out that I don't just listen to one genre of music, and why it's possible to like Bauhaus or New Order without liking Flock of Seagulls, or why I might want to hear guitarist Bill Frisell, but not Pat Methany. Or Muddy Waters but not B.B. King. What happened to those services from a decade ago that were going to be able to predict your taste from listening habits?
Also, one problem all the streaming services have is that if I want to shuffle-play my 10,000 song playlist, I don't want to just hear the same 50 songs over and over. There's a reason I have a 10,000 song playlist.
Yes, of course, legally. And when you get arrested and tried, the only definition that applies is "legally".
Crossing a country's border without the country's permission is Malum in Se. Having sex with with a fully-developed 16 y/o woman is merely Malum Prohibitum.
If you read the full story, Cody Wilson did both. He entered Taiwan without a passport and raped an underage girl. That's Mucho Malum, however you And honestly, I don't think those Latin phrases mean what you think they mean. Both of those things are malum prohibitum.
There are too many similarities with the bizarre accusations against Assange's for this to pass the smell-test.
Did Assange also buy an underage girl online? Did he get arrested in Texas, too? I don't remember that part of the story. Be honest. The only similarity between Cody Wilson and Assange is that they're both skeevy and they're both your heroes. And they're both in trouble.
"If"? You brought that into the conversation with zero evidence. Just dropped it in like nobody was going to notice?
He is not even accused of rape — the charges are "sexual assault".
In most states, the charge of rape has been broken into several categories, for the purposes of sentencing. Make no mistake: It's rape.
What should worry you is the threat to our privacy — but, of course, it does not. It is only important, when Communist terrorists [latimes.com] need to get off the hook. When it is about a guy who defends the Bill of Rights, you jeer and wish him to burn.
Look how far afield you're willing to take this story to make it match up with your bias. What evidence do you have of a threat to his privacy? What do "Communists" have to do with this guy raping an underage girl in Texas?
a Malum Prohibitum transgression.
Are undocumented immigrants criminals? Did they break a law, however minor? So then isn't Cody Wilson a criminal if he broke a law?
You really don't have to go all Infowars on this, mi. It's a lot of wasted energy and gets you all upset and there have to be more important things or people in your life. Making up conspiracies out of thin air is no way to live.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember the phone company used to charge for the privilege of having an unlisted number.
Public information is public. Who cares how Facebook got this guy's phone number if it was already public?
No, my point is "I do want privacy, but hysteria over a publicly-available phone number being publicly-available doesn't help us get there."
Even better. They're on the fucking campus directory which is on the fucking website.
And if you were to give me a name and a company, I could come up with a desk extension in about five minutes, without subterfuge or resorting to Facebook.
Please. The guy probably gives out business cards with his office phone number to random girls (or boys) at the bar. If you have a business and your phone number is a super double top secret, you're probably not going to stay in business long.
No shit. Do you know which website you're on?
I'm all for that, but he's going to have to get in line behind at least one current nominee for the Supreme Court and over a dozen members of the Trump administration.
Or, as in this specific case, sine it's an office number of a landline, it's available in any of dozens of public databases. Like the phone book.
I'm all for privacy, but are people too young to remember phone books? Let's not get hysterical. "Facebook figured out that I'm in California from a photo of me and my car with California license plates in front of Disneyland! OMG! Whatever shall we do?"
Landline numbers have been available in criss-cross directories since WWII. That information is public. I mean, it's the guy's office for chrissake. He's in the damn Yellow Pages.
Younger people don't realize that there used to be these books published, and given to everyone for free known as "phone books", and they listed your name, address and phone number. Anybody could look you up in these free books and know your location and how to call you. There are still "criss-cross directories" available at every public library where you can look up a street and get the phone number of people who live on that street. They're probably a lot less useful now that people are giving up land lines, but still...
How did we even survive the 20th century?
You sound like my wife. Honey, is that you?
Don't give Facebook your phone number. It's not required. Every few months they ask, "Do you want to give us your phone number to help us secure your account?" and I answer, "Fuck off, Facebook", as I click the "No" button and move on.
Again, it suggests that some boundary condition event had occurred, not that the phenomenon magically started in 2006. A true skeptic would say, "it was first observed in 2006". A shill would say, "it started in 2006".
I'm just trying to help you use more precise language.
You can say the phenomenon was first reported in 2006, but you cannot say that it started in 2006. It's like saying that Alzheimer's disease didn't exist until Aloysius Alzheimer identified it in 1901.
According to your source, there were already reductions in feral bees, but those reductions had been attributed to other factors.
That's racist.
You are correct. Cohen's testimony didn't mention Trump by name. It mentioned an "unnamed federal candidate that Cohen worked for". Since Cohen never worked for any other candidate, who do you think it's referring to?
That's why Trump is referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator". This is a common formulation in criminal cases that involve elected officials. I remember when an earlier incarnation of Trump, Rod Blagojevich, was indicted and everybody was finking on each other. They didn't name the other parties in the conspiracy because they were being indicted separately (or cooperating), and Justice Department guidelines don't allow testimony to name anyone who is not a defendant in that case. Since the testimony is evidenciary in a case that is still being built, brick by brick, against Donald Trump, he's not a defendant until he's indicted. But make no mistake: Cohen implicated Trump in several felonies, and is still talking his head off to prosecutors in some room in the Southern District of New York.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/2...
Gosh, don't they teach basic statistics any more? I guess this is how Trump got elected. First of all, it doesn't "happen more than 50% of the time to one of the two groups". If you re-read it (and then again), you'll see that this one group (white people) make up 50% of the population that is shot by cops. But, since white people make up 70% of the population, it means they are underrepresented in police shootings. Whereas, since black people are 12.3% of the population, yet make up 26% of the police-shooting victims, they are MORE THAN TWICE AS FUCKING LIKELY TO BE SHOT BY A COP AS A WHITE PERSON. You are conflating "it happens more often" with "it is more likely to happen to".
Wow. Just wow. This guy is walking around absolutely certain of something and lacks the basic reasoning ability to understand why he's dead wrong. And he gets a vote. Probably thinks he's above-average intelligence, too.
Black people make up 12.3% of the US population. White people make up 70% of the population. Now pay attention. If black people make up 12.3% of the population and make up 26% of the people shot by police, and white people are approx. 70% of the population and make up 52% of those shot by police, that means black people are more than twice as likely to be shot by police than white people.
See above. Go through it step by step. It's simple statistics, bro.
Since actual numbers and math show conclusively that black people are 2.7 times more likely to be shot by police than white people, I'm pretty sure it's safe to completely ignore every other item on your passive-aggressive list. You are the reason fake news is a problem. For those of you who still believe that white people are more likely to be shot by police, here is the best available resource on people killed in encounters with law enforcement. You can search the database itself, if you'd like, and even download the raw data.
https://www.fatalencounters.or...
Testimony, is by definition, evidence. We now have sworn testimony that Trump participated in multiple felonies. This testimony was from Trump's own long-time lawyer.
https://www.apnews.com/74aaf72...
Yeah, for some reason, that's a problem with all the services. The only way it makes sense is if they have better royalty deals with certain publishers or artists than others, and try to encourage plays of their music over others.
I cannot figure out why every single streaming service has trouble randomizing a 5,000 song playlist. Or a 500 song playlist, for that matter. I've even tried downloading my entire 5,000 song playlist, and when I hit shuffle, I can predict five of the first 10 songs I'll hear. That's unacceptable.
I've raised this issue in the support forums, but they'll tell me that it's truly random and I should believe them and not my own ears for the past 10 years of almost daily listening. So now I've taken to try to fool their service into giving me varied music, by creating radio stations from varied playlists but that only works to a certain extent.
Apple Human Shield Centipede Defense Team...ASSEMBLE!
In before, "They're probably just using it wrong."
Of all the streaming services, Pandora seems to handle multi-genre playlists better than the others.
I'm still kind of surprised that Google and Spotify, with all they know about me and my listening habits, can't seem to figure out that I don't just listen to one genre of music, and why it's possible to like Bauhaus or New Order without liking Flock of Seagulls, or why I might want to hear guitarist Bill Frisell, but not Pat Methany. Or Muddy Waters but not B.B. King. What happened to those services from a decade ago that were going to be able to predict your taste from listening habits?
Also, one problem all the streaming services have is that if I want to shuffle-play my 10,000 song playlist, I don't want to just hear the same 50 songs over and over. There's a reason I have a 10,000 song playlist.
Jesus wept.
Yes, of course, legally. And when you get arrested and tried, the only definition that applies is "legally".
If you read the full story, Cody Wilson did both. He entered Taiwan without a passport and raped an underage girl. That's Mucho Malum, however you And honestly, I don't think those Latin phrases mean what you think they mean. Both of those things are malum prohibitum.
Did Assange also buy an underage girl online? Did he get arrested in Texas, too? I don't remember that part of the story. Be honest. The only similarity between Cody Wilson and Assange is that they're both skeevy and they're both your heroes. And they're both in trouble.
"If"? You brought that into the conversation with zero evidence. Just dropped it in like nobody was going to notice?
In most states, the charge of rape has been broken into several categories, for the purposes of sentencing. Make no mistake: It's rape.
Look how far afield you're willing to take this story to make it match up with your bias. What evidence do you have of a threat to his privacy? What do "Communists" have to do with this guy raping an underage girl in Texas?
Are undocumented immigrants criminals? Did they break a law, however minor? So then isn't Cody Wilson a criminal if he broke a law?
You really don't have to go all Infowars on this, mi. It's a lot of wasted energy and gets you all upset and there have to be more important things or people in your life. Making up conspiracies out of thin air is no way to live.