How do they define "compromised"?
How do they define "compromised"?
I don't think your use cases are the same as most other consistent linux users, therefore you should have been modded irrelevant.
"Yay for privacy. We don't care about where you come from, and now you don't even have to tell anyone that you're using Debian"
but systemd reports back to those who Do care!
So everyones a winner baby!
No network stack if you don't load it. No problem.
Even better for hardware hacking on a pc/104 board. Get a connector to matrix board solder components. And prototype with no complications. It's a win win.
The trouble always was that some partners were more equal than others. Anyone who thought the euro was not the artificially weakened Deutsche Mark fell for the propaganda. The U.K. Has been an unwilling member BECAUSE the population were taken in under false pretences and successive pm's have signed up for more political union without a referendum, and therefore no choice, since no major party put leaving in Their manifesto. Gordon brown even snuck in the back door before signing a treaty (Lisbon) in a failed attempt to hide from the media. The first chance the public get a vote, and they vote out. Does that not tell you something?
What it tells me is that Europe was never about democracy....
But the euro has also fallen. The ftse 100 has dropped 5% yet the cac40 Dax and euro stocks have fallen more. Europe needed the uk in the club. Yet they would never accept British terms of trade such as including financial transactions within the free trade agreement. It's up to Europe to put its house in order. It's a shame that one one of the big three had to leave before the eu would do what is needed.
Which rules did the uk sign up to that they did not follow through?
U.K. Law is extremely literal to the law and European regs are followed here more strictly than over the rest of Europe.
U.K. Has had doubts over the European project from the day it signed up. 43 years later they are given another choice and they choose to leave.
It is Europe who have massively benefited from uk membership. A member state leaving was always a risk. The eu bueracracy was too arrogant and is now paying the price.
Germany also benefits massively from cheap European workers. And also benefitted massively from loans it made to Southern Europe to buy back its own products. Somehow the media have managed to make it look like the uk has an open door policy but hate all immigrants. Far from the truth on both counts. However the large companies and beuracracies have been in cahoots setting up a large trading block to benefit themselves. Even people in Poland Are coming to realise that they no longer own their own infrastructure any more since it has been privatised and bought out by international companies, but since it is called investment, no one notices. They benefit from international jobs but at what cost? I'm glad we are out since the Nhs was under threat from European threats including Ttipp however it now means we have to make sure the right wing in the uk don't stuff it up on their own. We have less people to blame. Being in control means our level of responsibility has increased.
Wrong. If it is hollow then the volume inside it increases massively whilst the skin area supporting structure increases relatively slowly.
It would probably be hollow. A space frame with a skin. A solid mountain would require too much material.
Yup. There's a genealogy site with an interactive map which moves through time describing the movements and influence of people genetically. It suggested that the earliest known genes in the British Isles where of basque or Iberian descent. That the Romans and celts although culturally significant, had relatively little effect on the gene pool. It wasn't till the Engels and Vikings invasions that had much effect on the east.
My argument is that the post I was responding to accused the previous poster of sensationalising the story. My argument is that it is the facts do not contradict the theory that US policy may have changed in light of recent comments by Trump (and others). There are many political reasons for doing this.
There may also be some evidence gathered by the secret services or others indicating that this family needed to be stopped, and there might be reasons to not declare this to protect the sources.
Questioning the reasoning is not sensationalising anything.
The facts are the facts. That is my point. Take what you like and leave the rest but don't start accusing people who ask questions and would like transparency of making a drama out of nothing.
Lets hope to god Trump has no direct influence on current border control. However there may be an indirect influence.
In the UK we have a political party called UKIP it started to do well in polls but had no MP's. The government started to mention strengthening borders and greater controls on immigration to counter the threat. It happens. UKIP only scraped 1 MP out of 6 hundred. Who can say whether the governments change of tack effected the outcome of the election, but that is politics.
UKIP's leader is Nigel Farage. He is also a nutbag.
You don't understand politics at all.
No it's not. Policy is dictated by those in power. Those in power politically position themselves to defend or undermine opposition arguments before elections one method is to occupy the political ground before the opposition does.
It is not sensationalist when the facts are they had permission to enter . They were refused to board. The excuse was that the uk borders or airline security had received a call denying them entry. No direct reason was given.
Two males and a number of children. With trips booked to Disney land.
They happen to be Muslim.
A week or so ago a nutbag running for president decides to promote a fascist border control policy.
The only problem with being a man of leisure is that you can never stop and take a rest.