The whiners today can shove this right up their collective asses. It's just repeating past Democratic behavior.
One or the other, but it won't be because of my vote.
So your vote has no effect on the election, then? You're choosing to use your vote in a way that deliberately reduces its impact on SCOTUS nominees?
So which do you prefer: liberal or conservative SCOTUS judges? There are real, substantive differences between them. If you DO have a preference, why are you choosing to use your vote in a way that you claim will not express that preference? Or, do you live in a state where you know that by withholding your vote from a candidate that actually can win, you know that you're already supporting the viable candidate that will sit the judges you want? Address this issue in less of a cop-out, non-answer way than you already have.
I agree with the XKCD reference. The thing most people seem to forget is that the knife cuts both ways.
Not interested in prison yard bullshit.
Prison yard. I see. Replacement meds haven't arrived in the mail yet, today? Check the tracking number, maybe they're out for delivery.
If someone was going to die as a result of a malfunction or breach of a system, we'd demand it be air-gapped and have robust CM. There would be hell to pay as a result of failure - think hospital systems. Or military systems.
The thing is, most of the systems businesses use aren't all that important in the grand scheme of things. No one is going to die if Twitter or Walgreens has a breach. Sure, for the individual, this is bad, but you're probably going to get your prescription anyway and having someone impersonate you on your Twitter account is irrelevant.
Cue "assumed breach"...we must assume that systems like Twitter and Walgreens are breached and are leaking data. Therefore, conduct any business with them while insulating yourself from the consequences of said breach.
Enough people obviously pay to fund the production of more. The fact that you aren't doing so is irrelevant. (neither am I)
Kursk was a strategic defeat, to be sure, but it was a tactical defeat as well. The main reason is that the gathered German mobile force was directed at a salient which had been basically turned into a fortress by the Soviets. Many lines of defense were constructed including a deep line all the way back at the Don - showing the Soviets were not convinced they could stop the Germans in the salient. Much superior results could have been had by choosing a different axis of attack in a different sector, rather than biting off Kursk after it had been fortified. The main reason why is that most casualties were caused via encirclement rather than frontal tank combat versus a staunch defense.
It is only the superior German units and tactics that resulted in the high Russian casualties you describe. The Russians could afford the loss (in purely practical terms), while the Germans could not replace their losses. Then, the Germans had their forces dispersed by the requirement to form a defensive line in Italy after that nation's collapse and armistice.
Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won" is a good synopsis of the recent scholarship on this, while Chris Bellamy's "Absolute War" is a less readable book overall that covers the same material in more detail. Books from before 1990 (example: Albert Seaton's "The Russo-German War") had very little detail about what actually happened at Kursk from the Soviet side. In regards the mistaken attack on Kursk, Mellenthin's wonderful "Panzer Battles" or Manstein's "Lost Victories" are pretty conclusive on this score.
They've lied about their news feed provenance, they've lied about censorship, now they lie about video statistics. The whole site is a cesspool. The day is rare when someone isn't asking me about a factually inaccurate FB ad trying to scam old people.
Taking it offline would benefit all of humanity. It's as bad as e-mail at this point.
I agree entirely. Can you say bad publicity? I knew you could.
Actually, he was genetically far better off, and this explains why he was able to spearhead a European domination of the Western Hemisphere. All that inherited resistance to crowd diseases from Eurasia - smallpox most significantly, but all the rest of them, too. In fact, the only areas Europeans didn't dominate in the Western Hemisphere were areas where indigenous diseases prevented their dominance, such as the Amazon basin.