What? Clinton herself signed a memo to her staff reminding them that they had to use state.gov mailboxes for their official correspondence. The woman you're trying to let off the hook certainly supported the common practice of each department (which have to handle their own FOIA requests) maintaining their own records. Do you really think that when someone at, say, the FAA gets a FOIA request, that it's the intention or the practice for their own records people to then contact hundreds of other agencies and departments to scour THEIR records for FAA-related correspondence? I guess you might think that if it allows you to ignore the hypocrisy of Clinton's own words.

What are you talking about? You're essentially saying that absolutely no career archivists and investigators can be trusted to know if they've looked through stored email records, but we can trust Hillary Clinton to be 100% upright when she tells us that we have to trust her when she says that the tens of thousands of records she destroyed were without relevance to the multiple inquiries that she's stonewalled for the past few years. You operate on a really bad case of mixed premises.

Who's speculating? She's the one who says she destroyed the records without allowing State archivists to do what they're required to do with all of the staff under her (review mixed private/official communications to make judgement calls about what's a public record). She's the one who deliberately transformed convenient, searchable electronic records with context-providing header info into clumsy, labor-requiring hardcopies ... and only after they were demanded of her long after leaving office. Her own description of her actions shows that she didn't provide State with any magical CCs of her communications with external third parties or other agencies, but YOU'RE the one saying not to worry, she probably CC'd somebody, somewhere, somehow, in order to be in compliance with the 2009 NARA requirement. Since you're so tired of speculating, how about being specific on why you think the thing that she's carefully avoided saying she did was none the less actually done, even though it left no trace whatsoever for multiple investigators to find at State? Please, be specific.

That's the point. There ARE NONE. The only way your lame, blithe dismissal of that can be anything other than shameless spin is if you are asserting that she never exchanged a single piece of official email with anyone in another agency, branch of government, or third party/nation. How about answering one single question: do you really think that's true, that she neither sent nor received a single email from anyone in the Senate, at the CIA, at DoJ, in Germany/Japan/UK/Arkansas/NY, or with any long-time fixer like Blumenthal during her entire tenure? Not a single email? Yes or no.

If you say no, then please just stop the hand-waving "she did nothing wrong" nonsense, since it's BS. If you say yes, then please just stop everything, including voting, because you're either toxically naive or being completely disingenuous.

So, yes or no? One single email with any one single contact outside of subordinates at State?

When you try to absorb information via video or audio, you're pretty much limited to the speed at which the video or audio was recorded. If you find the pace too slow, players like VLC can speed it up a bit, but I find that beyond about 1.5x the audio compression and frequency shift correction ends up distorting it enough that the speech processing centers of my brain can no longer clearly identify the words being spoken. If the pace is too fast, your only choice is pause and rewind.

When you absorb information visually, either by reading or looking at pictures, you can go as quickly or slowly as you like. It's like the audio machines I used when translating - glorified tape recorders with frequency correction based on tape playback speed, with foot pedals so you could go faster, slower, or rewind. Except you don't need any of that equipment with text or pictures.

This is why video and audio will always be an inferior method of transferring knowledge than reading and diagrams/pictures. You can use video and audio samples to demonstrate things which are best seen/heard in real-time, and live presentations are superior if they allow interaction between instructor and student. But for a general information dump, text and pictures allow the highest bandwidth, with the bandwidth controlled by the reader's mind. Video is like presenting a textbook as a flash animation with a fixed scroll speed, where you need to mess with clumsy fast-forward and rewind buttons to control bandwidth.

It is extremely hard to hide something the size of a pickup truck in orbit no matter what you try to do. The major problem being that there is a very limited amount of sky you can get the object into when you launch from a specific place at a specific time and launches are pretty obvious things. Plus, it takes a lot of energy to make significant changes in orbit if you want to do it over a short time so the people tracking you won't know where to look anymore. I's not that all of these challenges are impossible, it's just that they are expensive to do.

Makes you wonder though, what we don't actually know about. Something tells me that the Air force has assets in space that are not being tracked by anybody. Surely they have worked on stealth for satellites and have delivery systems that can throw stuff up there without much public notice.

And yet you have not explained in any of your posts why I don't know anything about psychology despite being challenged to do so in EVERY SINGLE POST I HAVE DIRECTED AT YOUR STUPID ASS... which is interesting because the burden has always been upon you to back your stupid position up with so much a fucking argument.

And you won't because you know I'll pull your balls out by your throat if you even TRY it. You can't win this argument. You're defending a pseudo science.

You won't present an argument though... because you're an intellectual coward. You say some bullshit and then when called on it run away. fuckwit.

Good.

The title lead me to believe they had done the same thing I've seen done ACTUALLY many many times. Thank you for the correction.

"Massive taxpayer-backed bailout" implies it wasn't a free market.

You do realize that broadband is nothing like a free market? It's heavily regulated by the federal government, which according to the theory I was protesting in the first place, is necessary for a "free market" to exist.

Let's note that deregulating banks did do that. That need still exists. We still want capital "freed" up. We still want more-efficient financial structures. And the rich lose more proportionally than the poor do in these bubble bursts IMHO. Capital is just a better return on effort in general than labor is in today's high competition world.

Go for it.

This is the point of evidence - to distinguish between hypotheses. When facts don't, then they aren't evidence. The list presented earlier is such an example. There are at least thousands of weather-related events to cherry-pick through each year. So it should come as no surprise that we have lots of rare weather events which can be frivolously blamed on AGW.

Right with you on the javascript thing. I use noscript passively everywhere. The internet is just a nicer place when random javascript has to have permission to run at all.

I only run what I have to run.

I do the same thing with cookies. If a site doesn't need cookies then I don't let it store them on my machine. And third party cookies? ha. Basically never. I go through most of the internet like a ghost. They can track my IP I guess but that is a far cry from loading me up with tracking cookies or insane amounts of nested javascripts.

Have you ever seen how they're set up? They put one inside another inside another inside another. They're like those fucking russian dolls only worse. You'll have five or six nested inside of one script and then each of those could have two or three scripts inside of it and so on. It is insane. There needs to be some sort of passive standard that limits scripts to the host domain. I don't understand why you'd run foreign scripts. There's no reason for it. ANd if you REALLY need to, then fine... let people right click something to add an exception but if most people don't do that the web admins will craft less retarded sites... and hopefully the ad people will be less obnoxious.

Valid for okay programmers. The great ones don't need to draw within the lines. You don't innovate by hashing together someone else's crap.

why
is
this
so
fucking
hard
to
grasp?

Causation and correlation. What they have here is CORRELATION... not causation. They have nothing that suggests being richer makes your brain bigger. The very idea that they have misinterpreted their data this badly makes me not want to live on this planet in and of itself.

What complete fucking idiots. Seriously. Retards. I suppose they're probably poor, which is why they're stupid.

What their "study" found was some correlation between brain size and wealth. First, brain size doesn't actually correlate with intelligence. There are some people with giant brains that are complete idiots. Literally retarded. And there are some people with abnormally little brains for humans that are quite intelligent. In gross terms having a chipmunk brain is going to require a similarly limited intelligence but small variances in brain size do not infer greater intelligence. Male brains for example are almost all larger than female brains yet we wouldn't say women are less intelligent.

In any case, even if we are talking about intelligence, the issue is correlation and not causation. And in that case, it is possible that the wealthier bloodlines are wealthier because they're more intelligent not more intelligent because they're wealthier.

As to these people presuming to suggest social policy on this basis... allow me to laugh derisively in their stupid faces.

*rolls eyes*

that's all we can be certain of really.

The good news is that the public are becoming more educated on the subject. I've noticed it over the years. They're getting more mindful about not sticking their dicks in electrical sockets... even if the buzzing sensation is momentarily enjoyable.

still waiting for you to cite a good the US monopolized.

So again, you're not explaining your position.

You're just saying I'm a rhinoceros over and over again. And I ask for some evidence or logic to support that position and you say "because you are"... again and again.

That is not how you have a constructive conversation. How can you be literate enough to form sentences but be so ignorant that you don't know how to form "thoughts"... I mean... this is fundamental. You are ignorant of things that should have been educated before you were taught to read.

It exists only in your mind.

I have nothing but respect for those that go through a PhD program and I have nothing but respect for the education and the disciplines involved... so long as the people involved in them have respect for them as well. There are examples of fraud and I have no respect for them.

The mere fact that I am arguing against you so strenuously here proves that you misunderstood my intentions. If I did feel that way, then I would agree with your position... right? And yet I don't... which means that clearly wasn't the message I was trying to send which means you're wrong.

I know I know... you like strawmen... but they're logically unsupportable so that's just too bad.

In any case, you're not interested in a constructive discussion but in some little emotional crusade. You are neither informed nor interesting. And lacking both I can't see why anyone would want to talk to you about anything.

Good day.