Comment Re:how long (Score 2, Insightful) 398
You're a douche-bag.
I say that with complete objective certainty.
You're a douche-bag.
I say that with complete objective certainty.
It's an allusion to the coffee cup in the test. It's called a weak attempt at humor. Perhaps you are crap at context.
What kind of whackjob gives a six year old coffee? They're annoying enough without a caffeine kick!
I was in 1st grade 39 years ago so my memory is a little fuzzy to say the least. I do remember being the fasted reader in the class and just burned through all the materials (I think it was SRA readers). Even so, I doubt I would get the word "guitar" -- that word is an import from Spanish and just doesn't lend itself to being sounded out using English sound characteristics. Why didn't they just use "balls" or "hats" or something about which there can be little confusion? It's a math test -- not a reading test.
Why? It puts a maximum on how old we can get. I wouldn't mind being younger.
Your boss wants you in the meeting, so you are in the meeting. End of story.
Text under a poster promoting self-employment.
So here's what I don't get: if the meeting can be essentially ignored by task switching from paying attention to the meeting to paying attention to texts and emails, then the meeting clearly isn't that important. If a meeting isn't important, isn't it just a waste of everyone's time to have it? If it is important, isn't it counterproductive to have people not paying attention to the meeting?
Anyway, I guess my point is, if you are running a meeting in which you feel it is OK for someone to check out and drift off into their own world, maybe you just don't need the meeting at all.
The FUCKERS Act?
Fucking Ultimate Congressional Kutsie Elimination Reform and Solutions Act
> Gitmo will close by the end of my first term.
Broken promise. He actually tried and was blocked.
It depends on what you mean by the word "close" because there are two potential meanings for "Close GITMO":
1) End the practice and shut down the prison.
2) Shut down the prison, retain the practice and simply move it to another location.
Obama's intention was #2, specifically, to "close" GITMO and move the practice to the Thomson SuperMax Prison in Illinois. http://www.salon.com/2009/12/15/gitmo_3/ Even liberal members of Congress voted against funding this proposal, but it has been deftly spun by the Obama admin as "Obama tried to close GITMO but congress blocked him." There is a lie of omission there so that despite being technically true, it leads to a totally false impression.
Which is exactly why real reform will require revisiting the the Third Party Doctrine. The 3PD is a Supreme Court principle that if you share information with a 3d party, even if that 3rd party promises confidentiality, and even if they do not breach confidentiality, the Feds can just have the info _without_ any sort of 4th Amendment analysis -- the 4th is just not applicable. The logic behind this is that the 4th only applies when you have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and if share information with anyone at all, you lose that expectation.
I don't agree with this -- it's sort of the Long John Silver standard, dead men tell no tales. I think there is place where people do act reasonably when they share info with at least some third parties because the fact of the matter is, you can't navigate modern life without such sharing. Justice Sotomayer recently made this point in her concurrence in the Jones GPS case. See PDF page 19: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/10-1259.pdf
Anyway, Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act is merely a codification of the 3PD. Destroy 3PD, and you instantly unconstitutionalize the masspionage.
This isn't like a rape case because the reporter who dressed hot isn't getting fucked, it's the people who trusted her with their secrets and who dressed plainly who are getting fucked. The rape analogy just doesn't hold up. She has a lot more in common with the rapist because her actions have enabled the rapist to rape a lot of people.
The advantage paper files have is that they cannot be transmitted over the internet/remotely accessed by an attacker because wood pulp just doesn't transmit.
The disadvantage is that there is no way to secure paper, at least not in the affordability realm of normal people.
However, a computer that is never connected to the internet, on which encrypted copies of the documents are stored, is affordable to the average person and would provide a high degree of security. The Feds would have to have a backdoor in the encryption software. Maybe -- we'll never really know on that. Another alternative would be to get an exploit on the air-gapped computer by the use of infected media, then executing a warrant to get the computer. Arranging this would be time consuming and expensive though and isn't possible to do for every reporter.
Anyway, I think encrypted files on an air-gapped never internet connected computer would be better than paper in a file safe.
Nice chart on the whole Clinton surplus thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGgjU-h_xQw
Jesus -- go back to Viet Nam, probably farther really, but why do you think Nixon abandoned Bretton Woods which tied the dollar to gold? We couldn't afford all the bullshit warmongering Kennedy and LBJ embroiled us in, which Nixon continued. We needed to print dollars without restraint to pay for the bullshit -- and we still do.
As for Clinton, it's easy to look good short term by liquidating our stored wealth, essentially cashing it in for a one time payment during the free trade agreement boom. But now that we're way down that road of exporting our jobs for a temporary boost to stock prices, what exactly are we going to do in the future? Blowing your inheritance is just as stupid as living off credit.
Fuck 'em all. Democrats and Republicans hate America and Americans.
This is sort of off topic but I heard a comment by Ariana Huffington in a debate on whether the US two party system is detrimental. At some point, the debate turned to job creation and she made the point that America currently ranks 10th in upward mobility, behind France. Then she said something like "The US being behind France in upward mobility is like France being behind the US in croissants and afternoon sex."
What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. -- Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928
