I think it's a rich person who has nothing better to do with his money.
Niagara Falls is in Ontario. You're not making it to Quebec unless you swim across Lake Ontario, into the St. Lawrence River, and downriver for 50 miles or so. If you can do that learning French should be easy.....
The problem is that it isn't the easiest or most obvious thing to do.
Yeah, it's like three or four whole mouse clicks to make it happen....
C'Mon people, Microsoft does enough shit wrong, we don't need to make crap up.
No autoplay (which was the core attack vector) and you'd hope the SCADA software would run as it's own user under Linux which isn't possible with Windows.
Really, who would be surprised by a blue screen from a Windows 95 box?
The giveaway was probably when the blue screen was replaced with CIA's logo and the text "All your base are belong to us."
Why they didn't use Linux, BSD, even the Russia or RedFlag version ?
Ask Siemens. They designed the equipment the Iranians are using and wrote most of the control software to operate in a Windows environment. Not that it would have mattered, once you've got an agency with the resources of CIA or Mossad after you it's only a matter of time before they find a way in. Linux is not proof against malware delivered via HUMINT assets.
Dude, it's the Government. That $5 wrench cost at least $25,000.
Where I live they haven't bothered to make any provision for back up power to the repeaters on their coax plant. Power goes out? Kiss your phone service goodbye, even if you've got the battery in your modem. They finally did upgrade us to DOCSIS 3, about eight months ago, so now our peak hour speeds have gone from atrocious to tolerable FWIW.
They're not. The GP obviously doesn't realize that Time Warner spun off Time Warner Cable quite some time ago.
I'm not disappointed at all. Drones are so much better than actually invading Pakistan, and reduces the number of kids that get killed in war.
I never got the hate for drones in the first place. Why would you want to launch a ground invasion instead, which means MORE kids getting killed?
Sure, if you want to kill someone, you're right. I think the argument against drones is that if you push a button and someone dies on the other side of the Earth and you didn't have to go to war to do that
And since Pakistan refuses to own their Al Queda problem, we have to take care of it for them.
No, no we don't. You might say "Al Queda hit us now we must hunt them to the ends of the Earth" but it doesn't mean that diplomacy and sovereignty just get flushed down the toilet. Those country borders will still persist despite all your shiny new self-appointed world police officer badges. Let me see if I can explain this to you: If David Koresh had set off bombs in a Beijing subway and then drones lit up Waco like the fourth of July and most of the deaths were Branch Davidians, how would you personally feel about that? Likewise, if Al Queda is our problem and we do that, we start to get more problems. Now, that said, it's completely true that Pakistan's leadership has privately condoned these strikes while publicly lambasting the US but that's a whole different problem.
Also, we must always assume that war = killing kids. The fact that people think kids shouldn't be killed in war basically gives people more of an incentive to go to war in the first place. When Bush invaded Iraq, the public should have asked "OK, how many kids are we expected to kill?" Because all war means killing kids. There has never been a war without killing kids.
The worst people are the ones that romanticize war, by saying war is clean and happy and everyone shakes hands at the end. War is the worst, most horrible thing, and we need to make sure people understand that, or they'll continue to promote war.
Yep, think of the children -- that's why we should use drone strikes, right? Look, war means death. Death doesn't discriminate and neither does war. If you're hung up on it being okay to take a life the second that male turns 18, you're pretty much morally helpless anyway. War is bad. Drone strikes are bad. There's enough bad in there for them both to be bad. This isn't some false dichotomy where it's one or the other. It's only one or the other if you're hellbent on killing people.
News flash: you can argue against drone strikes and also be opposed to war at the same time. It does not logically follow that since you're against drone strikes, you're pro war and pro killing children. That's the most unsound and absurd flow of logic I've seen in quite some time.
Wait. A person who made dubious claims that had no scientific backing to them was actually lying? What next? Water is wet?!!
I think pretty much everyone but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science knew all along that this woman was lying.
So you're saying everyone knew she was lying about her charity donations as well? Or was it only the charities that knew that? From the article:
The 26-year-old's popular recipe app, which costs $3.79, has been downloaded 300,000 times and is being developed as one of the first apps for the soon-to-be-released Apple Watch. Her debut cook book The Whole Pantry, published by Penguin in Australia last year, will soon hit shelves in the United States and Britain.
So you're saying the 300,000 downloads are by people that knew they were downloading the app architected by a liar? And they were paying $3.79 to Apple and this liar for a recipe app that contain recipes that someone lied about helping her cure cancer? And you're saying that everyone at Apple that featured her app on the Apple Watch knew they were showing a snake oil app on their brand new shiny device? And that the people at Penguin did all their fact checking on any additional information this cookbook might contain about Belle Gibson's alleged cancer survival? And that everybody involved in these events know society's been parading around a fucking liar and rewarding her with cash money while she basically capitalizes on a horrendous disease that afflicts millions of people worldwide
No, this is not the same as "water is wet" and it needs to be shown that holistic medicine is temporarily propped up on a bed of anecdotal lies
In my experience (New York State) they tend to side with the employee at the first level of appeal. If the employer contests that decision it goes before an administrative law judge, where anything can happen, though even there they tend to favor the employee in this blue state.
I quit a job once upon a time and secured unemployment. The employer attempted to retroactively impose random drug testing, I asked for an opt-out since it wasn't part of the conditions of employment when I was hired, they said no. I cited the applicable case law with HR, they still said no, so I quit. Won that one at both levels of appeal, found a new job three weeks later, started it two weeks after that, using the interim to take a nice vacation to Finland on the ex-employer's dime. I may have sent them an unsigned post card from Helsinki saying thanks for 50% of the salary for 0% of the work.....
That said, we already live in a world where use of stimulants in the workplace is expected. As the summary points out, 85% of people use caffeine.
And you've concluded stimulant use in the workplace is expected from the fact that 85% of people use caffeine? Have you ever known someone who was fired or held back from a promotion for a failure to use caffeine? I haven't. I've worked in offices my entire professional life and managed to go that long without picking up a caffeine habit; it hasn't held me back any. *shrug*
The next day, I explain to my team leader what my family does to people who get any of us into drugs, and quit. My father disapproves of the decision because he says I should also have punched the guy out after quitting.
I would have filed a claim for unemployment, then when said claim was initially denied because you quit voluntarily tell the Department of Labor why you quit. You would have doubtless been approved at that point and DOL starts an investigation of that company, a win win.
1. Why have vaccines and autism rates both grown exponentially in the last 25 years? (no, detection does not come close to answering)
Changes to the definition and protocols for diagnosing it account for the rate changes just fine.