The article talks about how presidential candidates (and some other office candidates) get secret security information before they are actually elected. And it says that Donald Trump should not receive that information.
Shouldn't candidates have to apply for a security clearance, if they want this info before they are elected? This could make it a nonpartisan issue, while achieving the same result (since Trump would not be eligible for a security clearance, due to his history of mishandling documents).
The main argument against making mandatory tests or additional subjective criteria, is introducing gatekeeping into the election. Who approves the clearance? Who double checks it? Who do they report to? Are you going to trust the current administration when they say that someone doesn't have clearance and can't run? The system is set up so that the people are in charge of the government, and not the government being in charge of the government. The issue that we are running into though is when the people are absolute morons.
That's going to be difficult to pull off I think. While it could be super effective, it's the poorer side of the tracks and a free ride can change someone's life forever. I think if the NAACP still has power, it could hurt the state but it won't be the 100% it would have once been (would be fantastic if that were the case though).
This type of boycott would legitimately cause actual change. If this ding dong got blamed for fucking up college football in Florida he's 100% getting the boot.
He is actually (believe it or not) one of the good ones. Do yourself a favor and look into Mark Cuban. He truly is self made and he has done a lot to give back.
You aren't worth arguing with. Your logic is faulty. Just because someone is wealthy they aren't automatically an asshole and (to follow that logic) just because someone isn't wealthy doesn't mean they are virtuous by default. How about my wife and I? We are technically a 6 figure household. Does that make me or her an asshole? What about the people who got and will get lucky with crypto or other investments? Is someone who bought and held bitcoin at sub $100 or even sub $5000 and asshole because they may technically be worth multiples of millions depending on how much they are still holding?
Don't answer the above, I'm going to block you because you aren't capable of having an adult discussion.
His money is going into innovations and a self administered company to sell prescription drugs at "cost plus" that creates an immense amount of transparency in the market and give users a better option than going on the usual channels.
From all the assholes with more than 9 zeroes as net worth he's one of the few who will tell you straight up that he's hard working but also was in the right place at the right time.
We are a nation without laws, run by a bunch of criminals. If the laws are never enforced, then they essentially don't exist. The only time laws are enforced are against the people, the working class that props the country up. The political and business class citizens are excluded from judgement.
There was one migrant crisis during the Obama years IIRC where it was some obscure native South American Tribe that tried to cross the border illegally, like hundreds of them, and it took an anthropologist to figure out just how to communicate with that group.
Trump is fucking up the story but there's actually an element of truth here. Border patrol likely told him the story to describe the day-to-day of a border patrol agent, and then Trump misunderstood and is now telling this... New thing... But anyone who knows the border knows the nugget of truth here.
It's like when that Senator said: internet is a series of tubes (instead of pipes, because pipe is ACTUALLY a computer networking term). It's a reasonable mistake for a non-technical policy maker to say here.
Trump says a lot of shit. But this one about not understanding some languages of some migrants... Yeah, it happens every few years. There's a lot of random native American tribes who don't speak Spanish, English, or Portuguese.
Not just Unix and yes, since they're often used as a socket-based communication tool between applications, just locally like I said, leading to a large overlap with other socket-based code. That's also why the comment that was originally responded to would still be wrong.
Except the part where you put data on one end, the data pops out on another end, and networks connect these pipes all together to move the data where they need to go.
TCP's communication model is one-to-one with unix pipes / file descriptors after they connect. And TCP is absolutely "the internet" as most people know it (HTTP, HTTPS, SMTP aka Email, etc. etc.)
They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.
"Series of Tubes" describes how say... if one network has a 10Mbit "tube", then there's no way it could fit all the data from a 100Mbit tube.
Its... fine. Its poor terminology but anyone listening to Senator Stevens that day would have known what he was talking about.
The real issue with Senator Stevens was the following line:
I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday.
Which is nonsense. I dunno why the "series of tubes" comment got memed when this bullshit was actually the mistake.
The debate with regards to network neutrality that Stevens was leading was about the opposite: whether or not ISPs were allowed to prioritize traffic. And who can choose those priorities when "the tubes got filled".
Anyway, I don't expect Senators to know how technical jargon works or to use technical jargon correctly. But I do expect them to get the gist of the situation so that they can have a policy debate. For all of the faults of language here, there's enough to go on to understand the issue of network prioritization in that discussion.
Similarly, I know Trump is fucking up this border issue / discussion point. But there's enough truth here. Border Patrol agents have to deal with an incredible number of language issues, especially when an obscure native American tribe crosses the border illegally. Its a known problem. In such cases, there's no nearby linguist who can even talk with the migrants.
Is this a first for Cannon doing the right thing during the trial? Are the scathing rebukes from the appeals court regarding her other horrible rulings finally setting in?
Lemmy.org - Politics
Newest