The number of grammatical cases is irrelevant. Question: What's the difference between a grammatical case without stem changes and a postposition (opposite of a preposition? Answer: A space.
That which is challenging, apart from stem changes, is the same thing that is challenging with helper words in general: when to use what with what. Picture a person learning English and trying to remember what to use with what. "I was scolding her.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "We were unhappy.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" "She was dedicated.... over it? for it? about it? to it? around it?" And so forth. It's the same for people trying to learn which declension case to use in which context. But if the declensions are just suffixes without stem changes, then they're no different from postpositions. And often stem changes where they occur follow pretty predictable rules, often for pronunciation reasons.
Yes, because writing an opinion that differs from yours is clearly only possible by being paid to do so. *eyeroll*
Making public a lot of things that people suspected but didn't quite know did indeed damage relationships. Had he not released the documents, the relationships would have continued as before.
Whether or not the secret actions should have been authorized in the first place is an entirely different issue. From my perspective, having to stamp "secret" on an authorization to do things that you know would piss off your friends is a sign that you probably should not be doing these things, or make you re-evaluate who your friends are.
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken: https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
That link says nothing whatsoever about rules for government employee e-mail.
That's a link to rules about ISPs archiving e-mail that is the subject of a subpoena.
So, I'd like to see the text of the "rule" saying she needed to use a
After some quick digging, this appears to be the law broken:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
Basically, she was required by law to archive her communications on federal servers. She did not.
The link you give says nothing of the sort. The link states that a government may require an ISP to archive e-mail subject to a subpoena.
That has precisely nothing to do with State Department employees, nor does it say anything whatsoever about what e-mail addresses they use.
Also of note, according to TSG she forwarded classified intelligence Emails to Sidney Blumenthal, who was not a federal employee.
That is a great example of "ABCs"-- Argument By Changing the subject.
Leaving the country to be run by people who are either too clueless to get out of jury duty
I've never quite understood: why would anybody want to get out of jury duty?
Pick the pool of candidates like we pick jury pools.
I've often suggested that, but this is the first time I've heard anybody else suggest it.
Yes: vote, but the candidates on the slate should be randomly selected from the population
I'm sorry, but I agree with that. If you on the UK want us to dam up our rivers and build roads out to geothermal areas and tap into our resources, and raise our local power prices in the process, all for the benefit of the UK, our government better damn well profit as much as possible from it and reduce our taxes / improve our services in exchange for that.
Unfortunately, xB and xD do not agree.
Readily replaceable intakes?
Seriously, fuck the fish.
Better negotiate the contract during a Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn / Framsóknarflokkurinn (conservative) government. Samfylkingin would approve it under the condition that the Icelandic government's share of the sales are so high that you would barely save any money on the imported power, and Vinstri Grænir would outright reject it no matter what you offered. But Sjálfstæðisflokkurinn and Framsóknarflokkurinn would let you dam up whatever rivers you want and take gigawatts of power in exchange for a handful of shiny trinkets and a couple magic beans.
Humans are the most deadly predators that the planet has ever had. Killing stuff is what we're really really good at. Making weapons is something we're really really good at.
Actually, making tools and organizing labor is we're really good at.
Exactly. And tools and organization are the two most useful skills... for efficiently killing things.
I personally have never killed anything larger than a bug in my life; I suspect a lot of other people haven't either. I've never had to, because there have always been other people who are willing to do those unpleasant tasks for me, in exchange for modest amounts of money.
Paying somebody else to do it turns out to be a very efficient strategy for killing.
Then again, they're something approaching scientists of one form or another. They have more attachment to truth than to politics.
Not asking permission is theft.
I'm a fan of U2 and I can see how some people might consider what they did rude or presumptuous, but theft? - No, just leave the contorted 'theft' analogies to the MAAFIA. No offense intended, but they are much better at it than you are.
Remember to say hello to your bank teller.