I hate to be pedantic, but Russia hasn't been red for twenty-five years now. Its colors these days are red, white and blue.
Well there's not a type of gum named after bears... That I'm aware of.
There's no bear themed gum, but there are gummy bears, and that made me think of these...
Haribo Sugar Free Gummy Bears.
Read some of the long reviews, they're amazing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, they're supposed to wreck your butt.
Never had that problem myself, but we goblins have heartier digestive tracts than you pinkskins.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All that computer science talk is gibberish to me, but thought some might get a kick out of this. Or maybe not. Computer science talk is all gibberish to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All that computer science talk is gibberish to me, but thought some might get a kick out of this. Or maybe not. Computer science talk is all gibberish to me.
Despite me having posted about it previously, and having been decently in favor of the FCC regulations (which never actually went into effect since that wasn't scheduled until December of this year IIRC), this isn't as big of a deal as most people are making it out to be. Virtually all ISPs allow their users to opt-out of data sharing for both phone and data service usage. Most also don't share any personally identifiable data in the first place, and instead share (again only if you consent and choose to not opt-out) only aggregate, anonymous data from their users (EX: AT&T notices that a lot of their users in a particular zip code use their phones around movie theaters more frequently than other venues, so they then start tailoring their advertisements in that area towards things that movie-goers would like). The only thing that really concerns me about this is that it prevents the FCC from imposing future regulations similar to the one that this bill rolls back unless that gets overturned (which I assume would be done through congress, but I can't say for certain).
U.S. Aims for Nafta Provision to Reinstate Tariffs
From the NYTimes.com
I found this paragraph particularly interesting:
"Rather than scrap Nafta’s arbitration tribunals — regarded by some free-trade critics as secretive bodies that give private corporations unbridled power to challenge foreign governments outside the court system — the letter proposes to “maintain and seek to improve procedures” for settling disputes."
Well, I assumed Trump was lying about NAFTA all along, but I wasn't 100% sure - until now. While I would have liked to see NAFTA and other "Free Trade" policies destroyed, it would have given Trump a large boost in popularity and credibility.
Democrats now have an issue that they could use for substantial advantage in the next election. The open question is: will exploit the issue, or will it become just another topic the two parties agree on, against the wishes of the voters.
If history is any indicator, the dial is firmly stuck in the "SUCK" setting on this issue.
Virtually all ISPs allow their users to opt-out of data sharing for both phone and data service usage.
But never tell you that you're in, don't give you a mechanism to opt out, and then when you opt out they change the service agreement and opt you back in without telling you.
This is why they were given a blanket "stop doing that" order, they kept going around it.
Virtually all ISPs allow their users to opt-out of data sharing for both phone and data service usage.But never tell you that you're in, don't give you a mechanism to opt out, and then when you opt out they change the service agreement and opt you back in without telling you.
This is why they were given a blanket "stop doing that" order, they kept going around it.
Which ISPs don't give a mechanism for opting out? I ask out of genuine curiosity because in discussing this very issue in-depth over the course of the day yesterday, I went through the privacy notices for both AT&T and Spectrum and found that both provided methods of opting out of a wide range of data collections.
Which ISPs don't give a mechanism for opting out?
Any of them. At any level that the user interfaces with them. they don't tell people they're doing it, when you say stop they reset the program, and when they say their data isn't being shared they lie.
This is your republican party. The party of smaller government and more obtrusive corporations. That the government will ask for information from later.
Which ISPs don't give a mechanism for opting out?
Any of them. At any level that the user interfaces with them. they don't tell people they're doing it, when you say stop they reset the program, and when they say their data isn't being shared they lie.
This is your republican party. The party of smaller government and more obtrusive corporations. That the government will ask for information from later.
Care to give any specifics or evidence of this? The few times that the companies have been caught violating the terms of their privacy policies AT&T in 2015 and Verizon in 2013, I believe), they paid for it because it's illegal. Without any evidence to support the claim that all ISPs are sharing data without the notification and consent of their users, it doesn't hold much water. Also, it's not MY republican party, as I have no affiliation with them.
Care to give any specifics or evidence of this?
you know, i had three links. I changed my mind.
No. you know this happened. You said as much. I have no idea what you're trying to play pretending that you don't know that this happened but it makes no sense to ask for evidence of something you acknowledge happened a sentence later, but its not actually looking for information.
The few times that the companies have been caught vioting the terms of their privacy policies AT&T in 2015 and Verizon in 2013, I believe), they paid for it because it's illegal.
When you do something illegal you go to jail
When a company does something illegal they are fined less than they made for the crime That's not a deterrent it's a cost of doing business.
Without any evidence to support the claim that all ISPs are sharing data without the notification and consent of their users, it doesn't hold much water.
So for your next trick you try to point out that there is a teeny tiny service provider that isn't doing this so the sentence is technically wrong?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Popular Mechanics article about the topic.
Of note:
- ISPs have opt-out options, but you have to do the work, they won't
- You'll have to similarly work to opt out from the same thing courtesy of your mobile phone service provider
- using encryption can garble what they collect
- using a reputable not-for-free VPN should thwart the dastardly ISPs
- using a secure chat app could keep their grubby paws off of your information acquired via chats
Ultimately it is, and always has been, up to you to keep your information safe.
case in point, there are a dozen different programs that you have to opt out of, and they don't have to tell you when the start a new one and opt you into it.
you know, i had three links. I changed my mind.
No. you know this happened. You said as much. I have no idea what you're trying to play pretending that you don't know that this happened but it makes no sense to ask for evidence of something you acknowledge happened a sentence later, but its not actually looking for information.
I acknowledged that some section of two companies had been caught selling personal info twice in a span of 5+ years. That in no way equates to:
Any of them. At any level that the user interfaces with them. they don't tell people they're doing it, when you say stop they reset the program, and when they say their data isn't being shared they lie.
AT&T and Verizon were caught, they were sued, and then they paid because of it. I'm waiting to be shown that this is in anyway a regular thing, where these ISPs constantly collect data on their customers against their will without any options to opt-out.
When you do something illegal you go to jail
When a company does something illegal they are fined less than they made for the crime That's not a deterrent it's a cost of doing business.
Sometimes when I do something illegal, I go to jail. Sometimes I pay a fine. Who specifically should go to jail in these cases? In the AT&T case, the perpetrators were employees at call centers in Mexico, Colombia, and the Philippines. Not only would these privacy breaches have not been prevented by the regulations that the bill being discussed above rolled back (since it was in 2015 and already illegal), but we don't exactly have jurisdiction to jail the people responsible.
So for your next trick you try to point out that there is a teeny tiny service provider that isn't doing this so the sentence is technically wrong?
No trick required. I'm claiming that none of the major ISPs are currently doing this at the policy level. In fact between the two examples I listed, only one was an ISP screwing up (AT&T's issue was with providing an anonymous buyer with remote phone activation and cell service customer info) and they have since begun providing the opt-out option I mentioned.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to be pedantic
I love to be pedantic!
During the campaign Flynn (and Trump... and the rest of the clown car) insisted that anyone seeking immunity must have committed a crime.
Why would someone seek immunity if they had not committed a crime?
I can see doing it just because our legal system is shady, but in such a high profile case, with such allies (i.e. The President and majority control of everything), and his military history, it hardly seems worth it, unless he really committed significant crimes. It also carries strong implications that he can testify against others, who committed crimes more serious then his own.
Brings back vague memories of Oliver North...
During the campaign Flynn (and Trump... and the rest of the clown car) insisted that anyone seeking immunity must have committed a crime.
Trump can contradict himself in the same sentence and no one bats an eye
|
General Flynn's attorney would be guilty of legal malpractice if he let his client testify before the House or Senate Intelligence Committees.
Flynn apparently was paid $60000 by the russian tv network to appear on a
panel and answer questions then he went to a banquet where he Met senior FSB, SVR and GRU officials. IT was really nothing of consequence Flynn was/is a high level spook. He got paid to meet and greet with his opposite numbers in the Russian intel business. They gaged one another and all were professional enough not to give one another national security information.
Flynn's getting paid a speaking fee is very unlike John Pedestoa's brother getting paid 500000 shares of stock by a Russian oligarch in a real shady deal while his brother John was HRC's campaign Manager and still an officer in the Family Lobbying firm. This smells like a real good influence operation. All it would have taken is the FSB infecting Podesta's [forgive the spelling of his name] with a virus and then having the brother carry that lap top into his office where his brother John was and infecting John's computer via wifi then the FSB would know everything John knew about HRC's campaign. We know John fell for a simple Fishing scam because he used password for his password on his Laptop.
Note to all democrats the Russians are bad guys the SVR and FSB still refer to the US as the Main enemy.
Who do you think it would be easier to compromise an trained Intelligence Professional that would be on the lookout for any type of operation targeting him or a greedy neophyte who has zero intelligence background and would have no way of spotting an operation targeting him.
As for the future of the Democratic Party unless they know when to give up fights they cannot win like the conformation vote of Gorsuch they will make themselves look bad to a large swath of voters and be in the minority for a long time.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the future of the Democratic Party unless they know when to give up fights they cannot win like the conformation vote of Gorsuch they will make themselves look bad to a large swath of voters and be in the minority for a long time.
Anyone with even the barest hint of integrity would have said the same of the Republicans blocking Obama's nominee for an entire year. Yet, the Republicans seem to be doing okay.
No, if the Democrats let that go without a fight, they are confirming that they will accept any injustice upon them and turn away from doing what is right.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the future of the Democratic Party unless they know when to give up fights they cannot win like the conformation vote of Gorsuch they will make themselves look bad to a large swath of voters and be in the minority for a long time.
So they should just stop fighting appointments and bills they don't like?
It sounds like you're suggesting that they will do well in the next few elections if they just give up "fights they can't win", which would be just about all of them for the next two years.
As for the future of the Democratic Party unless they know when to give up fights they cannot win like the conformation vote of Gorsuch they will make themselves look bad to a large swath of voters and be in the minority for a long time.So they should just stop fighting appointments and bills they don't like?
It sounds like you're suggesting that they will do well in the next few elections if they just give up "fights they can't win", which would be just about all of them for the next two years.
It really comes down on whether sacrificing the ability to filibuster a SC justice for this (not only for this nomination but...well for all future nominations) is worth the short term political gain from the pleasing the base.
However...McConnell's move to refuse to ever consider Garland pretty much created the current situation. Had Scalia survived to the Trump presidency, and that snafu didn't happen, I think a much better case could be made for democrats cooperating with Republicans on a supreme court pick.
Effectively the right has abandoned, for quite a bit of time, any sense of bipartisanship on most issues. We're now seeing the pretty inevitable result of that causing the democrats to do the same.
As for the future of the Democratic Party unless they know when to give up fights they cannot win like the conformation vote of Gorsuch they will make themselves look bad to a large swath of voters and be in the minority for a long time.So they should just stop fighting appointments and bills they don't like?
It sounds like you're suggesting that they will do well in the next few elections if they just give up "fights they can't win", which would be just about all of them for the next two years.
Given that the primary criticism of the parties is that they're indistinguishable, and the criticism from the left is aimed at the idea the mainstream party will sell out the little guy over corporate money, and the party does well when its base is unified and energized enough to participate (generally winning when voter turnout is high) it seems more likely that not fighting would be the actual death knell of the DNC.
I liked his point about Podesta's brother, though.
Anyway, we had been wondering what we were going to do for May Day this year, what with all the talk about escalating the resistance and whatnot. Student walk-out? we were thinking.
But then the Donald made it easy for us.
Five immigrants arrested by ICE in Lawrence
Met a whole new group, Cosecha Lawrence at the CIS office, and they were already planning a May Day action anyway.
It's a somewhat common criticism from certain aspects of primarily the Left wing, it's complete and utter nonsense, but it's made fairly regularly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way I heard it described was "The two parties are both headed in the same direction, just at different speeds, therefore they're basically just the same".
This is, clearly, why the Democrats have been trying to get more people covered by affordable health care and the Republicans have been trying to decrease that number. It must also be why Democrats tend to be interested in expanding civil rights, while Republicans are more about not doing so (hello, North Carolina and your "no nondiscrimination ordinances" thing). And it's probably why unemployment tends to go up under Republicans and down under Democrats. I mean, this sort of stuff is definitely heading towards the same end result, right...?
*Listens to the crickets*
But more seriously, any examples of actual differences tend to get swept under the rug as "Oh, that's just one of the things they're different on". So it doesn't really matter how different they are, they're accused of being the same anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Shrug) Depends on how you prioritize issues. Generally, only diehard Democrat supporters say anything like "they're all the same, right?" (sarcastically). Other people say stuff like, "they're the same on this particular issue which I think is particularly important," or, "Democrats are better on issues X, Y, and Z, but even worse than the Repubs on issues A and B."
Or, to match your level of sarcasm: If you want to claim you're the only person who doesn't ignore reality, than stop ignoring reality.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it was said sarcastically but typically, the people I see saying they're all the same are people who want to vote republican but for whatever reason, don't want to admit they are republican.
I haven't actually seen that, but I won't claim it doesn't exist. On my part, "I wish the Dems were a lot better on wealth gap" means just that. Reading that to mean "all the same" is tempting, but inaccurate.
Here's the kinda thing I was looking for.
PNHP-Healthcare Justice Rally (Medicare for All)
Don't think I've got anything planned for Saturday, although I think the Lawrence immigrant rights activists might be doing something...
one of the places from which they look the same is when one is really far from the mainstream - on either side. Especially if everything is reduced to a pass/fail kind of approach - if neither party is good enough to be on the right side of the line, then both can just be dismissed as bad, even if there are still differences in how bad.
I'm aware that I'm very far from the mainstream, in thinking that the amount of the nation's total wealth being in the hands of 8 people (vs. the same amount being shared among 150 million people) is a profoundly unhealthy state, and we should work to reverse that rather than accentuate it. Most people I talk to actually agree in principle, but very few politicians do -- and very few people other than Comrade Anklebiter are willing to even think about rocking that particular boat.
And, yes, if one party's stance is "give all the money in the world to one person right now" and other's is "keep things so that the other half of the money will continue to accrue to the ultra-rich," then, yeah, they both fail.
|
I'm aware that I'm very far from the mainstream, in thinking that the amount of the nation's total wealth being in the hands of 8 people (vs. the same amount being shared among 150 million people) is a profoundly unhealthy state, and we should work to reverse that rather than accentuate it.
In my experience that's pretty much a boiler plate Democrat position. I think it was even in the party platform last year.
And, yes, if one party's stance is "give all the money in the world to one person right now" and other's is "keep things so that the other half of the money will continue to accrue to the ultra-rich," then, yeah, they both fail.
You must be talking about the Republican and Libertarian parties... 'cuz Democrats have consistently pushed for higher minimum wages, more taxes on the wealthy, stronger unions, et cetera.
p.s.: Yup, right there in the party platform
Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy. Our country depends on a thriving middle class to drive economic growth, but the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy. Our country depends on a thriving middle class to drive economic growth, but the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.
Sure that's the talk, but not the walk. Ask Bernie.
one of the places from which they look the same is when one is really far from the mainstream - on either side. Especially if everything is reduced to a pass/fail kind of approach - if neither party is good enough to be on the right side of the line, then both can just be dismissed as bad, even if there are still differences in how bad.
I'm aware that I'm very far from the mainstream, in thinking that the amount of the nation's total wealth being in the hands of 8 people (vs. the same amount being shared among 150 million people) is a profoundly unhealthy state, and we should work to reverse that rather than accentuate it. Most people I talk to actually agree in principle, but very few politicians do -- and very few people other than Comrade Anklebiter are willing to even think about rocking that particular boat.
And, yes, if one party's stance is "give all the money in the world to one person right now" and other's is "keep things so that the other half of the money will continue to accrue to the ultra-rich," then, yeah, they both fail.
I'm not saying you're wrong, it's just that this election has once agin reminded me that when social welfare issues are the only differences between the two parties in a two party system, social welfare issues are worth voting on.
Wait, I tell a lie; in the last election it was less social welfare than basic governmental competence. I'm not saying you're wrong about the distribution of wealth in the US, but it is pretty obvious to me that there'd be a better chance of improving the day to day experience of the poor with the Democratic Party in power than with the Republican Party in power.
Kirth has never said that.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kirth has never said that.
Shhh. Everyone is allowed "alternative facts," remember? As long as you're not quite as bad as the Republicans, you can do whatever you want without reproach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sure that's the talk, but not the walk. Ask Bernie.
Democrats believe that today’s extreme levels of income and wealth inequality are bad for our people, bad for our businesses, and bad for our economy. Our country depends on a thriving middle class to drive economic growth, but the middle class is shrinking. Meanwhile, the top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent combined.
Except we empirically know that they often are racist.
They also favor policies that result in white supremacy, such as voter ID laws, immigration bans and hard line enforcement of immigration policies against Latino communities, or school funding systems that result in poor black communities being isolated and left with failing schools.