Despite CNN's near-invitation to do so?
Despite CNN's near-invitation to do so?
News flash: NOT EVERYONE DESERVES OR IS ENTITLED TO COLLEGE.
What's next, reporting that "Mercedes drivers are more likely to be from the 1% than the lowest 60%"
...the point would be that this person be punished fully to the degree appropriate to the economic damage they wrought.
I like execution for any crime where the costs exceed $1 million, whether they're a hacker or Goldman Sachs.
"In August he was a nobody"
This is the sort of statement that illustrates your point
Michael Flynn served as the 18th Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, from July 22, 2012, to August 7, 2014.
It's really not astonishingly shocking that a new president would select a former head of the DIA as National Security adviser, PARTICULARLY when most of the upper-level Washington insiders that might be ahead of him for the job signed one or more "NEVER TRUMP" letters ahead of the election.
BTW, Flynn's a registered Democrat. That doesn't get reported much.
I simply disbelieve that you did the financial checking you claim.
Mr Obama set the new tone for politics when he told Republican senators who objected to his railroading legislation: "I won".
Now Democrats get to see what that feels like, as well as a Presidency even *more* enabled with executive hubris and centralized power than Bush's 8 bad years of executive overreach.
I don't like Trump, but the Left's ceaseless whinging is going to cost them more elections if they don't learn to fucking shut up.
"lefties overcompensating in their horror of the Trump phenomenon"
Except that it's been going on for at least the last 20 years.
Not that you're wrong, it's certainly gotten worse since Nov 9. But it's been a thing generally since the 90s, and canon in US colleges at least since the days I went to school (1986-1990).
I can tell I'm getting sick without sensors, generally.
And it's a fuckton cheaper.
I'll start to believe this hoo-ha about "fake news" being a SERIOUS effort to raise the standards of journalism when I see one reputable mainstream outlet reporting that 'hands up don't shoot' in Ferguson was ALSO 'fake news'.
Until then, it's just "my party lost" biased after-election whinging.
I've read about this role for the appendix for at least 5 years? At LEAST.
Here's an early article I found on the subject https://blogs.scientificameric... - and if SciAm had it in 2012, it had to be relatively established information, they're not anywhere near cutting-edge reportage.
And here's a Discover magazine thing saying the same thing in 2008: http://discovermagazine.com/20...
...or, for a rather heavily-regulated industry, banks seem to behave in a rather cavalier fashion?
I'm pretty sure I got an offer to buy WoW Gold ingame from someone with that name last night.
...if just once, money/power didn't win out on this one.
What's funny is that is PRECISELY what killed 3d movies, 50-60 years ago, and prevent them from becoming any big thing today.
Sure, people LIKE 3d, if they can have it conveniently. But 64% of American adults wear glasses.
Were early 3D TV sets too highly priced?
- Yes, WAY overpriced for the perceived value to anyone but marketeers.
Were there too few 3D films and 3D TV stations available to watch (aka "The Content Problem")?
- No, because nobody cared about the 'feature'
Did people hate wearing active/passive plastic 3D glasses in the living room?
- I'm not sure many people even GOT to this point, but that was certainly the kiss of death.
Was the price of Blu-ray 3D films and Blu-ray 3D players set too high?
- didn't even hit the radar by this point
Was there something wrong with the stereo 3D effect the industry tried to popularize?
- yes, that nobody wanted it and the industry INSISTED IT WAS THE GREATEST THING EVER.
Did too many people suffer 3D viewing related "headaches," "dizzyness," "eyesight problems," and similar?
- Again, didn't even tickle the needle - the so-called consumer had lost interest for several reasons before this step.
Was the then -- still quite new -- 1080p HD 2D television simply "good enough" for the average TV viewer?
- Yes, and largely still is. 4k only sells when the upcharge is nearly insignificant.
Another related question: If things went so wrong with 3D TVs, what guarantee is there that the new 3D VR/AR trend won't collapse along similar lines as well?
- None. I expect it will tank almost completely. cf: Internet of Things.
Oddly enough, consumers are starting to understand that they don't need shit simply because some website, magazine, or tv show says they do.
Data: there is a (in geologic terms) near instant pulse of CO2 and temperature apprx every 120k years. This goes back at LEAST the last 3 million years, arguably back 5+ million years.
Data: the last such pulse was about 120k years ago. So we're due.
Clearly, none of the previous pulses was caused by SUVs and nasty humans. If we observe a cycle happening dozens of times, but assert that THIS TIME it's somehow being driven a different mechanism, certainly the onus is on us to explain conclusively how & why the previous mechanism stopped and a new mechanism took over.
Data: The bulk of earth's history has been at ambient temperatures higher (sometimes much higher) than the Pleistocene and Holocene. If one was to predict a planetary 'norm' over history, we're certainly currently far below it.
Data: There have been countless FUD-alerts since the 1970s identifying the bane of the human species for any number of reasons, ALL of which have been proved either completely false or grossly overblown: peak oil, nuclear power, fresh water, DDT, overpopulation, food shortages, etc. The 'Cry Wolf' effect is a real thing. Things blamed on global warming: http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Data: the promulgators of AGW have been repeatedly 'caught' massaging data (hockey sticks), creating data ('interpolation' of missing stations), adjusting data (http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/100-of-us-warming-is-due-to-noaa-data-tampering/), and when called to produce it, saying "the dog ate my homework" (https://climateaudit.org/2009/08/11/cru-responds/). Hell, they've flat-out lied about the "97% of climate scientists agree" line for years (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle).
To be clear, AGW deniers have
The "data" here is that reliable, objective interpretation of this information - much less policy formulation - is no longer reasonably possible.
What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.