The only difference that I've noticed is that kids these days don't read the manual. You want to help old programmers, host lots of manuals. You want to help young programmers, make a video where you tell them how it would feel to actually do it if they actually learned how.
You named three popular politicians, two of whom are Presidents who were easily reelected. You might not realize this, but Americans who vote Democratic are also Americans! lol
Newsflash: your own circle of friends is just your own circle of friends, not "America." How could you possibly not know that Bill Clinton is one of the most popular Presidents ever, and Obama is close behind? How could you not know that Hillary Clinton had a really high approval rating as Secretary of State? Oh, you must be one of those "low information voters" who get all their newsvertainment from one channel, and believe all of it.
Key phrase in there is: likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both.
Since no grave injury or harm happened, it is pretty easy to conclude that it wasn't that likely. And it is hard to make the case anyways, since she hired IT people to handle security. Furthermore, the State Department is the one whose email got hacked, so you'd need to be claiming that it would cause some sort of grave harm that it "could have" been hacked, and that would have to be in harm in contrast to if she had used the hacked State Dept. email. There is no there there.
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected?:)
No, they're presumed innocent on account of having not been convicted, or are you just going to declare them guilty on your own?
She doesn't actually deny it, she just uses the standard anti-vax mealy-mouth that denies the conclusion or the term but then restates the anti-vax positions.
Her attempt at a nuanced position to trick you worked. She's not "against vaccination" in that she isn't trying to ban them; she'd still allow people who want them to get them.
But lets be clear and honest: She is against the current system of requiring vaccinations for school children. That is the actual debate that people are talking about when they call her a "vaxxer-apologist." They're accusing her of exactly the position that she is taking, you simply misunderstood what the positions are.
Well, he does have more clues than Stein, at least. But he also started learning about foreign policy (the President's main job) during the campaign. Yikes.
Actually, he wouldn't, because the Court would be able to re-rule. "Double jeopardy" doesn't protect in civil cases; if you're pardoned for having done the thing, the thing didn't stop. The pardon only covers the punishment. The thing would still exist, so the Court could just issue a fresh injunction.
I agree it would be chaos, I just don't agree who would win the power struggle in that exact example.
Well, how much "respect" does it show the office to intentionally trump-up the wrong charge, since the things he did weren't even illegal? I would say that is a negative number...
I was actually surprised he didn't, until I read the explanation; Trump is too self-centered and vain, he would never have chosen somebody like the Grinch that loves the spotlight.
We have enough bodily fluids in the campaign already, what with Trump running around grabbing pussies and sticking his tongue in random mouths. Not to mention the mess the pet squirrel he carries around makes.
But you don't have to go and put a tainted bodily fluid right on the ballot! At least find a human candidate.
Hey clue stick, you might want to check units before quibbling about claims of "largest;" it may turn out that the Universe has more than one possible unit, and that there was actually one obvious unit type that fits the statement. It wasn't at all ambiguous, and he didn't make any mistake.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem. Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem. And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
His statements when taken together paint a much more nuanced position. He did do exactly the same thing; the difference is that he used a regular email account in some company's control, he didn't run his own server. So you'll notice he denies doing the "same" thing, but he doesn't claim to have only used the work email. He just claims to have bypassed it in a way where he doesn't have any real control over it, and can't even hire his own security.
Also lets note, the State Dept. email some people want her to have used did get hacked while she was doing that job, and the server she was hosting didn't.
And fuck you for making false accusations about "traitors." You don't even know what the word means, you disgusting prick. Why do you hate America?
Except she isn't being investigated, and Comey released a statement telling the world that they haven't even checked if it is relevant yet, but they're investigating if they should investigate it.
Your mistake about the nature of the statement explains exactly why it is inappropriate; the general public doesn't even have the legal vocabulary to understand what Comey did or didn't say, and they're not going to wait and look it up before just guessing what it might mean.
60% of the country agrees with nearly every single thing on Sanders's platform.
Keep telling yourself that, but no, only 60% of your circle.
And I've worked a lot of jobs, but garbage man isn't one. When you have to sweep everybody who disagrees with you into a category you call "garbage people," I have to presume you don't even vote, don't have any idea what the issues even are, and don't have any fondness for representative democracy.
The reason Clinton is electable is that people want to vote for her, and have been saying so for decades. That you weren't aware of that is astounding, and it is far more likely that you were aware of it, but simply discounted all their views because they know more about sanitation than you do.
No, in the context of elections you only count the people in the country that is voting as "people." Counting people in other countries is like counting space aliens; it doesn't matter how many there really are, it is off topic. US median age is 36, but the median age of US voters 45 years. So that is the relevant number; not under 25, but also not 28. 45.
Well, we mostly do know that. Normally, a candidate that has a good chance to win the general election is somebody generally centrist; in the primary they have to run towards the wing of their party, and then in the general they can comfortably shift back to their true record that is centrist.
Sanders didn't fit that pattern. He actually had to move towards the center just to be acceptable to the wing of the party. He isn't even listed as a Democrat in the Senate; even through that whole primary, he only registered privately as a Democratic voter; he never listed himself as a Dem in the Senate. So obviously a hard sell to the party faithful. But having shifted towards the center in the primary, he wouldn't be in the normal position of shifting back to the center; he'd need to move even further to the center. And we saw in the primary, he struggled with moving to the center at all. He never did manage any sort of vaguely moderate foreign policy other than some of "golly he'll hire some good people" or whatever it was.
And if the DNC is a "problem" for a candidate, that explains why we have "superdelegates:" we don't want another George McGovern or Walter Mondale. Those guys lose. And Bernie is just a more-fringe McGovern. If you do a search one the terms "George McGovern Walter Mondale" you'll find stuff about Bernie on the first page; from liberal websites, not the DNC.
Bernie is like Trump; he caused a lot of non-voters to show up at rallies, and did well in the primary, but didn't really have much support. And we do know from that process that he wouldn't have changed at all, because he had already changed up to his limit in that direction.
Because Hillary isn't hated, that is just what the talking-head industry has decided sells well.
If you want to understand American culture, the first thing you need to understand is that the stuff on the TEE-VEE is all fake. Including the "news." Those are not reporters telling you what they found, those are actors, reading a script. The script is not written by a journalist. It is written by a media producer, whose job is to make sure the product sells.
People from the opposing political party dislike Hillary, so that pads out their poll numbers. What they don't bother to include in the script is that as Secretary of State and as Senator she had really high approval ratings. You can "spin" the same numbers to show that she is one of the most popular politicians, or one of the least. They only like to report the negative side, but actually those people's opinions don't matter; they were never going to vote for anybody from the Democratic Party anyways! But, they watch a lot of newsvertainment, so the teevee leans their direction.
Actually that sounds like it improved a lot! Any temps that are on a mandatory work-somewhere-else schedule are not going to be assigned to important work, they'll only be doing legit temp work. The ones who become important during their work... will be hired on regular. That was the whole point of the action, that was the goal; to force MS to stop abusing the temporary status. The goal wasn't to make temp work awesome, or to lift temp workers up, it was to restore honesty about who is and isn't a temp. I guarantee important fake-employees became real employees when their time-away approached.
And as far as I know, Uber isn't specifying that you must drive only a certain type of car either...
So, you know nothing about their service or the control they have, but you thought you'd share your opinion anyways?
I didn't apply, but when the issue came up before I checked my car and even though it still looks nice their rules would absolutely disallow it. I find it funny because it is so much smoother driving and cleaner than the late-model rental I used.
You didn't find it in the summary, or what? No, I'm not going to be your volunteer home health care spoon feeder, but thanks for offering.
If you actually take it upon yourself to look up the public information about this particular accusation, for example reading the article, you'll find out with a lot of specificity what the accusation is. You're asking ME for a cite, but unlike you, I'm not making stuff up and presenting an original position. It would be silly and redundant for everybody who talks about an accusation to independently cite the same laws every time they repeat the portions of it that are not even in doubt or under dispute.
The absurdity is that facebook isn't claiming any of this nonsense about it not being illegal to discriminate in housing advertising, instead they're jumping on the bizarre claim that classifying somebody as having an "ethnic affinity" is not the same thing as using race. You don't understand law, so just take my word for it, that's not a viable stance. It seems more related to internal blame-shifting than an attempt to defend the practice.
If they don't discontinue the practice they'll end up with record fines for this type of thing.
Were the magnets just letters, or did they include a pre-made fully-formed n-word?
Is the complaint that facebook fails to detect all forms of racism in the ads submitted? Or is the claim actually that they allow a user to select race specifically, to actually indicate their preference to the facebook algorithm which then carries out a race-based selection process?
The answer is right in the summary; yes, facebook is accused of explicitly identifying people's race and offering the service of race-based ad selection.
Slashdot Mirror
The only difference that I've noticed is that kids these days don't read the manual. You want to help old programmers, host lots of manuals. You want to help young programmers, make a video where you tell them how it would feel to actually do it if they actually learned how.
You named three popular politicians, two of whom are Presidents who were easily reelected. You might not realize this, but Americans who vote Democratic are also Americans! lol
Newsflash: your own circle of friends is just your own circle of friends, not "America." How could you possibly not know that Bill Clinton is one of the most popular Presidents ever, and Obama is close behind? How could you not know that Hillary Clinton had a really high approval rating as Secretary of State? Oh, you must be one of those "low information voters" who get all their newsvertainment from one channel, and believe all of it.
So precious!
Key phrase in there is: likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both .
Since no grave injury or harm happened, it is pretty easy to conclude that it wasn't that likely. And it is hard to make the case anyways, since she hired IT people to handle security. Furthermore, the State Department is the one whose email got hacked, so you'd need to be claiming that it would cause some sort of grave harm that it "could have" been hacked, and that would have to be in harm in contrast to if she had used the hacked State Dept. email. There is no there there.
That's why we indict people and put them in front of a jury - to decide if they are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Or are you just going to do away with any decision process for guilt and innocence, and declare people innocent if they're properly politically connected? :)
No, they're presumed innocent on account of having not been convicted, or are you just going to declare them guilty on your own?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...
She doesn't actually deny it, she just uses the standard anti-vax mealy-mouth that denies the conclusion or the term but then restates the anti-vax positions.
Her attempt at a nuanced position to trick you worked. She's not "against vaccination" in that she isn't trying to ban them; she'd still allow people who want them to get them.
But lets be clear and honest: She is against the current system of requiring vaccinations for school children. That is the actual debate that people are talking about when they call her a "vaxxer-apologist." They're accusing her of exactly the position that she is taking, you simply misunderstood what the positions are.
Well, he does have more clues than Stein, at least. But he also started learning about foreign policy (the President's main job) during the campaign. Yikes.
Actually, he wouldn't, because the Court would be able to re-rule. "Double jeopardy" doesn't protect in civil cases; if you're pardoned for having done the thing, the thing didn't stop. The pardon only covers the punishment. The thing would still exist, so the Court could just issue a fresh injunction.
I agree it would be chaos, I just don't agree who would win the power struggle in that exact example.
Well, how much "respect" does it show the office to intentionally trump-up the wrong charge, since the things he did weren't even illegal? I would say that is a negative number...
Moon bases, all the way down.
I was actually surprised he didn't, until I read the explanation; Trump is too self-centered and vain, he would never have chosen somebody like the Grinch that loves the spotlight.
We have enough bodily fluids in the campaign already, what with Trump running around grabbing pussies and sticking his tongue in random mouths. Not to mention the mess the pet squirrel he carries around makes.
But you don't have to go and put a tainted bodily fluid right on the ballot! At least find a human candidate.
Hey clue stick, you might want to check units before quibbling about claims of "largest;" it may turn out that the Universe has more than one possible unit, and that there was actually one obvious unit type that fits the statement. It wasn't at all ambiguous, and he didn't make any mistake.
The complaint generally isn't that the campaign would need to be "built around" misogyny for it to be a problem. Merely choosing to include it might actually be the big problem. And the problems in that area don't relate only to character or policy, they relate to both actually.
His statements when taken together paint a much more nuanced position. He did do exactly the same thing; the difference is that he used a regular email account in some company's control, he didn't run his own server. So you'll notice he denies doing the "same" thing, but he doesn't claim to have only used the work email. He just claims to have bypassed it in a way where he doesn't have any real control over it, and can't even hire his own security.
Also lets note, the State Dept. email some people want her to have used did get hacked while she was doing that job, and the server she was hosting didn't.
And fuck you for making false accusations about "traitors." You don't even know what the word means, you disgusting prick. Why do you hate America?
Horsepucky, giving speeches isn't "selling influence."
Or did you confuse her work begging donations for a grade-A charity with her making money for herself? Do you even know what a charity is?
Except she isn't being investigated, and Comey released a statement telling the world that they haven't even checked if it is relevant yet, but they're investigating if they should investigate it.
Your mistake about the nature of the statement explains exactly why it is inappropriate; the general public doesn't even have the legal vocabulary to understand what Comey did or didn't say, and they're not going to wait and look it up before just guessing what it might mean.
60% of the country agrees with nearly every single thing on Sanders's platform.
Keep telling yourself that, but no, only 60% of your circle.
And I've worked a lot of jobs, but garbage man isn't one. When you have to sweep everybody who disagrees with you into a category you call "garbage people," I have to presume you don't even vote, don't have any idea what the issues even are, and don't have any fondness for representative democracy.
The reason Clinton is electable is that people want to vote for her, and have been saying so for decades. That you weren't aware of that is astounding, and it is far more likely that you were aware of it, but simply discounted all their views because they know more about sanitation than you do.
No, in the context of elections you only count the people in the country that is voting as "people." Counting people in other countries is like counting space aliens; it doesn't matter how many there really are, it is off topic. US median age is 36, but the median age of US voters 45 years. So that is the relevant number; not under 25, but also not 28. 45.
Well, we mostly do know that. Normally, a candidate that has a good chance to win the general election is somebody generally centrist; in the primary they have to run towards the wing of their party, and then in the general they can comfortably shift back to their true record that is centrist.
Sanders didn't fit that pattern. He actually had to move towards the center just to be acceptable to the wing of the party. He isn't even listed as a Democrat in the Senate; even through that whole primary, he only registered privately as a Democratic voter; he never listed himself as a Dem in the Senate. So obviously a hard sell to the party faithful. But having shifted towards the center in the primary, he wouldn't be in the normal position of shifting back to the center; he'd need to move even further to the center. And we saw in the primary, he struggled with moving to the center at all. He never did manage any sort of vaguely moderate foreign policy other than some of "golly he'll hire some good people" or whatever it was.
And if the DNC is a "problem" for a candidate, that explains why we have "superdelegates:" we don't want another George McGovern or Walter Mondale. Those guys lose. And Bernie is just a more-fringe McGovern. If you do a search one the terms "George McGovern Walter Mondale" you'll find stuff about Bernie on the first page; from liberal websites, not the DNC.
Bernie is like Trump; he caused a lot of non-voters to show up at rallies, and did well in the primary, but didn't really have much support. And we do know from that process that he wouldn't have changed at all, because he had already changed up to his limit in that direction.
Because Hillary isn't hated, that is just what the talking-head industry has decided sells well.
If you want to understand American culture, the first thing you need to understand is that the stuff on the TEE-VEE is all fake. Including the "news." Those are not reporters telling you what they found, those are actors, reading a script. The script is not written by a journalist. It is written by a media producer, whose job is to make sure the product sells.
People from the opposing political party dislike Hillary, so that pads out their poll numbers. What they don't bother to include in the script is that as Secretary of State and as Senator she had really high approval ratings. You can "spin" the same numbers to show that she is one of the most popular politicians, or one of the least. They only like to report the negative side, but actually those people's opinions don't matter; they were never going to vote for anybody from the Democratic Party anyways! But, they watch a lot of newsvertainment, so the teevee leans their direction.
Yes, in most places municipalities can sell water and electricity to anybody. Next question.
Actually that sounds like it improved a lot! Any temps that are on a mandatory work-somewhere-else schedule are not going to be assigned to important work, they'll only be doing legit temp work. The ones who become important during their work... will be hired on regular. That was the whole point of the action, that was the goal; to force MS to stop abusing the temporary status. The goal wasn't to make temp work awesome, or to lift temp workers up, it was to restore honesty about who is and isn't a temp. I guarantee important fake-employees became real employees when their time-away approached.
And as far as I know, Uber isn't specifying that you must drive only a certain type of car either...
So, you know nothing about their service or the control they have, but you thought you'd share your opinion anyways?
I didn't apply, but when the issue came up before I checked my car and even though it still looks nice their rules would absolutely disallow it. I find it funny because it is so much smoother driving and cleaner than the late-model rental I used.
You didn't find it in the summary, or what? No, I'm not going to be your volunteer home health care spoon feeder, but thanks for offering.
If you actually take it upon yourself to look up the public information about this particular accusation, for example reading the article, you'll find out with a lot of specificity what the accusation is. You're asking ME for a cite, but unlike you, I'm not making stuff up and presenting an original position. It would be silly and redundant for everybody who talks about an accusation to independently cite the same laws every time they repeat the portions of it that are not even in doubt or under dispute.
The absurdity is that facebook isn't claiming any of this nonsense about it not being illegal to discriminate in housing advertising, instead they're jumping on the bizarre claim that classifying somebody as having an "ethnic affinity" is not the same thing as using race. You don't understand law, so just take my word for it, that's not a viable stance. It seems more related to internal blame-shifting than an attempt to defend the practice.
If they don't discontinue the practice they'll end up with record fines for this type of thing.
Were the magnets just letters, or did they include a pre-made fully-formed n-word?
Is the complaint that facebook fails to detect all forms of racism in the ads submitted? Or is the claim actually that they allow a user to select race specifically, to actually indicate their preference to the facebook algorithm which then carries out a race-based selection process?
The answer is right in the summary; yes, facebook is accused of explicitly identifying people's race and offering the service of race-based ad selection.