Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
Democrats cautiously optimistic they finally have first female president
What begins? - the overconfidence, you mean?
You're getting HRC vibes?
Yep.
They should not be optimistic. They should be terrified they are looking like they will lose and they should be working their socks off to find out where they are failing to convince and doing something. At least with a candidate who has energy and is clearly able to actually do the four year term things are looking a little better.
And she went to Wisconsin which is more than HRC did.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
@HYUFD I have only seen a few of the comments earlier re the Falklands, but we have discussed this on an earlier occasion. The Falklands was not an easy war to win. If they had invaded the Isle of Wight it would have been, but the Falklands is much further away. The Exocet threat to the Aircraft Carriers was significant and could have ended the attempt there and then. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was key, depriving the Army of transport helicopters. It could have been worse.There are many more examples that put it on a knife edge, but to give one with the opinion of someone who should know:
The Argentinean Air Force bombed our ships too low to enable the arming of their bombs causing several direct hits not to explode. They fixed that issue.
Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked on that failure: "Six better fuses and we would have lost" I suspect he knows better than you or I. It was touch and go.
Maybe but the Falklands was British sovereign territory with inhabitants who wished to stay British and we correctly used all means to defend it.
We also had submarines with nuclear weapons the Argentines didn't and a better trained army, whereas the Chinese had nuclear weapons like us and a bigger army so defending Hong Kong once the lease expired was never a realistic prospect in the same way. There was also no lease for the Falklands, it was permanently British as long as the inhabitants wished it that way
Democrats cautiously optimistic they finally have first female president
What begins? - the overconfidence, you mean?
You're getting HRC vibes?
Yep.
They should not be optimistic. They should be terrified they are looking like they will lose and they should be working their socks off to find out where they are failing to convince and doing something. At least with a candidate who has energy and is clearly able to actually do the four year term things are looking a little better.
And she went to Wisconsin which is more than HRC did.
Far too complacent. I think they’re allowed to be optimistic - at present the switcheroo has gone better than anyone imagined and it looks like Harris is making inroads. But they are still in a tie, or slightly behind, and they have ground to make up.
If Trump wins again though then VP Vance will be his heir apparent and able to continue MAGA Trumpism through 2028 as likely next GOP nominee. For having served 2 terms, Trump constitutionally cannot run again if elected in November for a second term.
Harris if she has any sense will pick Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro as VP nominee, if she then gets Pennsylvania that is 19 electoral votes in the bag and then high black turnout in Georgia and Detroit Michigan for the Democrat ticket would be enough to see her over the 270 line
Your advice to the Democrats has thus far been consistently wrong, so I'm laying Shapiro.
No it hasn't, Harris has no clear poll lead in the poll average at present and without Shapiro helping her win Pennsylvania she almost certainly loses it to Trump and the EC and election
Tom Tugendhat has emerged as the leadership contender who is most popular with the public, according to a new Savanta poll shared with Sky News.
The former security minister, who ran for the leadership after Boris Johnson's tenure, has a net favourability of -3, compared with -28 for Priti Patel, the former home secretary who scored the lowest rating with the public.
Not bad for Cleverly either at -9 and Badenoch at -12 better than Braverman at -23 and Patel.
Jenrick not polled
The lesser-known, the better they polled. If 'Beverley Saunders' had been on the list she'd have polled the best.
Given the importance of the Leader of the Opposition in the aftermath of a landslide defeat, electing a disembodied name as a placeholder for a couple of years might be worth a try.
If Trump wins again though then VP Vance will be his heir apparent and able to continue MAGA Trumpism through 2028 as likely next GOP nominee. For having served 2 terms, Trump constitutionally cannot run again if elected in November for a second term.
Harris if she has any sense will pick Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro as VP nominee, if she then gets Pennsylvania that is 19 electoral votes in the bag and then high black turnout in Georgia and Detroit Michigan for the Democrat ticket would be enough to see her over the 270 line
Your advice to the Democrats has thus far been consistently wrong, so I'm laying Shapiro.
Conservative evangelicals oppose her for the same reason
I assume though (although I could be wrong) that Catholics are more likely to be Democrats and Conservative Evangelicals more likely Republican therefore the lose of the Catholic vote is more important.
I know both Democrat and Republican Catholics.
It depends on whether you place a higher value on wealth distribution or social issues, as Catholics generally believe in both. If the Dems go hard on abortion, that has the potential to turn much of the Catholic vote Republican.
Indeed whereas some evangelicals are fine with prosperity gospel and living in mansions with private jets and limos while also bashing abortion, not even Catholic Bishops let alone priests have anywhere near that luxury, indeed Catholic priests take a poverty vow
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
@HYUFD I have only seen a few of the comments earlier re the Falklands, but we have discussed this on an earlier occasion. The Falklands was not an easy war to win. If they had invaded the Isle of Wight it would have been, but the Falklands is much further away. The Exocet threat to the Aircraft Carriers was significant and could have ended the attempt there and then. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was key, depriving the Army of transport helicopters. It could have been worse.There are many more examples that put it on a knife edge, but to give one with the opinion of someone who should know:
The Argentinean Air Force bombed our ships too low to enable the arming of their bombs causing several direct hits not to explode. They fixed that issue.
Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked on that failure: "Six better fuses and we would have lost" I suspect he knows better than you or I. It was touch and go.
Maybe but the Falklands was British sovereign territory with inhabitants who wished to stay British and we correctly used all means to defend it.
We also had submarines with nuclear weapons the Argentines didn't and a better trained army, whereas the Chinese had nuclear weapons like us and a bigger army so defending Hong Kong once the lease expired was never a realistic prospect in the same way. There was also no lease for the Falklands, it was permanently British as long as the inhabitants wished it that way
I'm not disagreeing with the defending of it, although there are merits on discussing that, nor anything else you have said in that post. Just disagreeing it was easy.
Conservative evangelicals oppose her for the same reason
I assume though (although I could be wrong) that Catholics are more likely to be Democrats and Conservative Evangelicals more likely Republican therefore the lose of the Catholic vote is more important.
Hispanic Catholics lean Democrat, white Catholics lean Republican but neither are as Republican as white conservative Evangelicals.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
And there is no constitutional or legal right to terminate a baby's life up until birth either, Roe was just the other extreme
Roe was a consensus decision, not an extreme. And you (as you often do) inaccurately caricature what is said.
..This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy...
...A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation...
If Trump wins again though then VP Vance will be his heir apparent and able to continue MAGA Trumpism through 2028 as likely next GOP nominee. For having served 2 terms, Trump constitutionally cannot run again if elected in November for a second term.
Harris if she has any sense will pick Pennsylvania Governor Shapiro as VP nominee, if she then gets Pennsylvania that is 19 electoral votes in the bag and then high black turnout in Georgia and Detroit Michigan for the Democrat ticket would be enough to see her over the 270 line
Your advice to the Democrats has thus far been consistently wrong, so I'm laying Shapiro.
No it hasn't,
5 stages of grief?
Michelle Obama is still third favourite for the Presidency. Albeit now out to about 85 on Betfair.
I have just bought an artisanal cheese knife from juan the blacksmith who fashions daggars and swords from scrap metal in his own forge set in the 12th century walls of the fortified Templar town of Saint Eulalie-de-Cernon
Are you thinking of launching a line of whittled cheese themed sex aids to add to you flint knapped range?
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
Democrats cautiously optimistic they finally have first female president
What begins? - the overconfidence, you mean?
You're getting HRC vibes?
Yep.
They should not be optimistic. They should be terrified they are looking like they will lose and they should be working their socks off to find out where they are failing to convince and doing something. At least with a candidate who has energy and is clearly able to actually do the four year term things are looking a little better.
And she went to Wisconsin which is more than HRC did.
Now there's a viable DEM candidate I've reconnected with my previous long-held confidence that America will not re-elect Donald Trump. However, given the horror of that prospect, I don't like the idea even of it being close. Close means unbearable tension, 'events' and randomness deciding things, and the strong possibility of shenanigans with the corrupt Supreme Court.
I'm so emotionally invested in this election, I really do see it as Light v Dark on the biggest stage, that I'm not sure I should also have a lot of money riding on the outcome. I'm thinking of netting my book right down to small profit/loss on Harris/Trump respectively. Probably I won't but I am considering it.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
If you plan to live that long and have a DB pension you are quids in. If you have a DC pension you are in big trouble.
Most now have DC private pensions, so the Triple Locked state pension looks set to stay indefinitely as it would be electoral suicide to get rid of it as DC private pensions do not provide most pensioners with enough in retirement
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
Though the anti Roe SC likely stays for some time even if Harris wins, so he will have eternal reward in heaven with the other conservative evangelicals he can join for all eternity even if he loses
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
Though the anti Roe SC likely stays for some time even if Harris loses, so he will have eternal reward in heaven with the other conservative evangelicals he can join for all eternity
And I can't think of a better punishment for him than that!
I have just bought an artisanal cheese knife from juan the blacksmith who fashions daggars and swords from scrap metal in his own forge set in the 12th century walls of the fortified Templar town of Saint Eulalie-de-Cernon
The shards from a fractured, poorly made, cheese knife really detract from the whole cheese experience I find.
(I might consider a Japanese artisanal blacksmiths product, but with that one exception I'd avoid)
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
And there is no constitutional or legal right to terminate a baby's life up until birth either, Roe was just the other extreme
Roe was a consensus decision, not an extreme. And you (as you often do) inaccurately caricature what is said.
..This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy...
...A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation...
A right of personal liberty and protection of peoples' rights does not give the right to terminate human life up to birth, not least as that contradicts protecting potential life you mention and the judges mentioned. It is up to the states where they decide human life begins not the Federal govt
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
Though the anti Roe SC likely stays for some time even if Harris wins, so he will have eternal reward in heaven with the other conservative evangelicals he can join for all eternity even if he loses
I have just bought an artisanal cheese knife from juan the blacksmith who fashions daggars and swords from scrap metal in his own forge set in the 12th century walls of the fortified Templar town of Saint Eulalie-de-Cernon
The shards from a fractured, poorly made, cheese knife really detract from the whole cheese experience I find.
(I might consider a Japanese artisanal blacksmiths product, but with that one exception I'd avoid)
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
If you plan to live that long and have a DB pension you are quids in. If you have a DC pension you are in big trouble.
Most now have DC private pensions, so the Triple Locked state pension looks set to stay indefinitely as it would be electoral suicide to get rid of it as DC private pensions do not provide most pensioners with enough in retirement
It was a joke. If you live to the end of the universe a DB pension would be quite profitable whereas the best DC pension even Bill Gates could buy would be rubbish.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
Awww, look who ignored RCS's tip of Kamala at 40 last week.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
We managed to tolerate part of the UK not allowing abortion for decades without it ever becoming a national political football.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
We managed to tolerate part of the UK not allowing abortion for decades without it ever becoming a national political football.
Well it couldn't have become a football when women weren't allowed to play.
I am unbelievably glad I live in a country where abortion is not a live political debate, because everyone grasps that it isn’t a simple one.
In due course we might need to drop the age limit a smidge, but I think our position reflects reality, including the one that, like it or not, if you ban it then it will still happen on kitchen tables and people will die. I do not understand why Americans do not grasp this.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
What's this "Shamala" business?
You're not a MAGA moron, are you?
It was a Fielding reference but I'll be more careful not to offend the preferred candidate in future.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
What's this "Shamala" business?
You're not a MAGA moron, are you?
There seems to be more here than one would expect. I am particularly surprised by one of our senior posters.
I am unbelievably glad I live in a country where abortion is not a live political debate, because everyone grasps that it isn’t a simple one.
In due course we might need to drop the age limit a smidge, but I think our position reflects reality, including the one that, like it or not, if you ban it then it will still happen on kitchen tables and people will die. I do not understand why Americans do not grasp this.
We've chosen, and chosen well, to keep all sorts of things out of politics. Religion is the obvious example, and the policy of 'just get on with it' has worked magnificently for centuries, and I hope that the mad mullahs of Ealing just do that. (I'm not sure there are any mad mullahs in Ealing). Sex! Tricky for us Brits - but it's the same thing - all a bit unpleasant and happens mostly behind closed doors for a reason, but the variety of it really isn't so important.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Strawman. Nobody argues for abortion to be compulsory.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
'Settling' a political debate by judicial fiat such that one of the 2 parties of government makes it a core part of their platform to over-turn it was not settled in any meaningful sense. The proof is clearly in the pudding.
And yes it's abundantly clear that for most people how we have things here is 'normal' and thus the issue isn't worth any serious thought, but that doesn't make it so. To the previous point, inventing a constitutional right which was clearly not there wasn't balance.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Balanced in that unelected judges interpreted a privavy clause in a constitution written by a bunch of men who made Ian Paisley look like a Catholic as giving a right to Abortion.
Whatever you think about the subject, it was decided here by our elected representatives and if you want it change you need to win an election with sufficient electoral representatives.
That decision by unelected judges poisoned the US body politic and basically caused the culture wars.
It is a warning of the dangers of written constitutions elevating the unlected judges who interpret them over elected representatitives. And a warning of the dangers of federations (Hurrah for Brexit).
We now have neither other than the residual interference of a supranational proto constitutional court (for now).
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
15 minutes added time in the football with Morocco leading Argentina 2-1.
Pitch invader during the added time.
Argentina equalise in the 16th minute of added time, Morocco fans throw Coke cups and bottles on the field, the ref takes the players off, and the TV broadcast assumes that's full time.
An hour later, VAR disallows the goal, and the players have to come back for three minutes in an empty stadium.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Strawman. Nobody argues for abortion to be compulsory.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
A difficult market to judge at the moment. Probably a fair reflection of the state of play at the moment - but it feels like things are in a state of flux until more polling filters through with Harris as the candidate.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
What's this "Shamala" business?
You're not a MAGA moron, are you?
It was a Fielding reference but I'll be more careful not to offend the preferred candidate in future.
You misspelled it, then, offending PB pedants of all political persuasions.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
15 minutes added time in the football with Morocco leading Argentina 2-1.
Pitch invader during the added time.
Argentina equalise in the 16th minute of added time, Morocco fans throw Coke cups and bottles on the field, the ref takes the players off, and the TV broadcast assumes that's full time.
An hour later, VAR disallows the goal, and the players have to come back for three minutes in an empty stadium.
This is my photo for the day, and a question. It is the "Public Art" installation at "Fold Street" launched this afternoon by Samsung, with TfL, Taylor Herring, St Marks Studios and Iris (creative agency types I think). Do we have anyone who goes home that way? I'm interested to see what you think.
They have messed around with the readability of station signs, and installed various "folded" items in the middle of pavements. Imagine approaching that in a powerchair from the Right Hand Side in the dark.
For a fair comparison with a parallel for non-disabled people, what would happen if they replaced all the road signs at a junction with ones pointing in the wrong direction for "art", and for fun replaced manhole covers with identical looking ones made from thin plastic for the public to fall down?
If this is what it looks like, and I accept I can't know until I have seen a proper site report, Samsung are going to get their nuts somewhat roasted, and perhaps quite quickly. Baroness Tanni-Grey Thompson will have things to say, for a start.
It can be done creatively and safely, but I think they perhaps just did not think to think.
15 minutes added time in the football with Morocco leading Argentina 2-1.
Pitch invader during the added time.
Argentina equalise in the 16th minute of added time, Morocco fans throw Coke cups and bottles on the field, the ref takes the players off, and the TV broadcast assumes that's full time.
An hour later, VAR disallows the goal, and the players have to come back for three minutes in an empty stadium.
Which sees no further goals, and Morocco win.
What a farce.
The UK government should have bought up all those tickets and bussed in the migrants that have come from France.
@HYUFD I have only seen a few of the comments earlier re the Falklands, but we have discussed this on an earlier occasion. The Falklands was not an easy war to win. If they had invaded the Isle of Wight it would have been, but the Falklands is much further away. The Exocet threat to the Aircraft Carriers was significant and could have ended the attempt there and then. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was key, depriving the Army of transport helicopters. It could have been worse.There are many more examples that put it on a knife edge, but to give one with the opinion of someone who should know:
The Argentinean Air Force bombed our ships too low to enable the arming of their bombs causing several direct hits not to explode. They fixed that issue.
Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked on that failure: "Six better fuses and we would have lost" I suspect he knows better than you or I. It was touch and go.
Maybe but the Falklands was British sovereign territory with inhabitants who wished to stay British and we correctly used all means to defend it.
We also had submarines with nuclear weapons the Argentines didn't and a better trained army, whereas the Chinese had nuclear weapons like us and a bigger army so defending Hong Kong once the lease expired was never a realistic prospect in the same way. There was also no lease for the Falklands, it was permanently British as long as the inhabitants wished it that way
It would have been quite funny though if we had handed over the New Territories to the legitimate Chinese Government, based in Taiwan, and kept a large naval base in Hong Kong itself to assist the legitimate Chinese govednment in fending off the communist terrorists.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
15 minutes added time in the football with Morocco leading Argentina 2-1.
Pitch invader during the added time.
Argentina equalise in the 16th minute of added time, Morocco fans throw Coke cups and bottles on the field, the ref takes the players off, and the TV broadcast assumes that's full time.
An hour later, VAR disallows the goal, and the players have to come back for three minutes in an empty stadium.
Which sees no further goals, and Morocco win.
What a farce.
Yeah, it was obvious in real time that VAR was going to have to have a look because it was a fourth attempt on goal (one saved, one saved onto the crossbar and one just hit the crossbar) and that kind of thing always has a chance to have a player offside, but the utter lack of communication to the media when the players went off is strange to say the least. Maybe emptying the stands was the plan...
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
Awww, look who ignored RCS's tip of Kamala at 40 last week.
Me too. I backed Kamala in the teens, long before she reached 40s, largely because Biden's age was hardly a state secret. I just wish I'd gone in again at 40s. As you would. I got Vance at a double figure price although I backed Cotton the same day, so really only half price. Buttigieg was an early pick at, erm, less than the price he has come back into overnight.
And that's why I cashed out and took my profits. As we approach the winning line, so markets become better informed, squeezing out any value, and we can easily be picked off by insiders with privileged information (as when Rishi's mates plunged on a July election).
I have no way of knowing whether Kamala will choose Kelly, Shapiro or one of the others. Worse, I might have an opinion, like many PBers, on who she *should* choose, which can be quite dangerous because that is not what the market will be settled on. Even if Kamala agrees with me on the ranking of the candidates, it only takes one 10-year-old tweet to surface and the top man is bottom.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
Why should women who live in states like North Carolina or Arizona have to face forced births because convicted felon Donald Trump put a bunch of extremists on the Supreme Court?
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
Slight value Harris I think but not sure. I've changed my position on Popular Vote - I have long-standing bet on Reps at big odds (so am bigly green) but think this is a value loser and have recently backed Harris for Popular Vote at 2.02 (now 1.49).
Keenly awaiting Prof Lichtman's prediction. See link:
@HYUFD I have only seen a few of the comments earlier re the Falklands, but we have discussed this on an earlier occasion. The Falklands was not an easy war to win. If they had invaded the Isle of Wight it would have been, but the Falklands is much further away. The Exocet threat to the Aircraft Carriers was significant and could have ended the attempt there and then. The loss of the Atlantic Conveyor was key, depriving the Army of transport helicopters. It could have been worse.There are many more examples that put it on a knife edge, but to give one with the opinion of someone who should know:
The Argentinean Air Force bombed our ships too low to enable the arming of their bombs causing several direct hits not to explode. They fixed that issue.
Lord Craig, the retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force, is said to have remarked on that failure: "Six better fuses and we would have lost" I suspect he knows better than you or I. It was touch and go.
Maybe but the Falklands was British sovereign territory with inhabitants who wished to stay British and we correctly used all means to defend it.
We also had submarines with nuclear weapons the Argentines didn't and a better trained army, whereas the Chinese had nuclear weapons like us and a bigger army so defending Hong Kong once the lease expired was never a realistic prospect in the same way. There was also no lease for the Falklands, it was permanently British as long as the inhabitants wished it that way
It would have been quite funny though if we had handed over the New Territories to the legitimate Chinese Government, based in Taiwan, and kept a large naval base in Hong Kong itself to assist the legitimate Chinese govednment in fending off the communist terrorists.
Is everyone here unaware of just how difficult it would have been to defend Hong Kong against military attack?
Heck, even Churchill said it wasn't worth more than a token effort at best. If it lasted slightly longer than Singapore that's only because Singapore had pretty much no landward defences at all.
Crowdstrike to overhaul the way they do software updates, after they inadvertently crashed an estimated 9,000,000 computers last Friday.
As an example, RTM's worm that famously crashed machines on the Internet back in 1988 infected somewhere between 2,000 and 6,000 machines...
I love RTM's story.
As an aside: "During the Morris appeal process, the US court of appeals estimated the cost of removing the virus from each installation was in the range of $200–$53,000." (1)
If even that lower value is used as the cost for Crowdstrike, then they're in *deep* trouble...
Well I spent something like 30 hours fixing around 100 machines, so call it a grand in my time to my employer. Downtime to others wasn’t too much but call it another collective grand.
All but one machine in my office, a print server, came back up with a simple fix - system restore point, getting to a recovery command prompt and deleting the offending file, booting from a Linux USB stick and deleting the offending file etc.
It wasn’t really a virus that required wiping disks and massive loss of data.
We were relatively lucky, in that our business-critical systems don’t see the Internet by design, the same can’t be said for the many airports and airlines affected though, for some the direct costs will be in the tens of millions, and the indirect costs in the tens of millions more.
Just want to say UK banks weren’t impacted.
UK banks are the best.
IT failures are what keep me up at night.
We’re well prepared for cyber attacks/hacking but I fear the big screw up will be something like this or the Year 2038 bug.
No one is paying any attention to the Year 292,277,026,596 bug.
*Everything* will fail.
I sat in a three day meeting about the Year 2038 bug.
Edit: The Year 292,277,026,596 bug is the result of the upgrade to fix the Year 2038 bug.
I was once tasked with writing a system (for an OS...) that would be able to track and measure dates into the far future and past. I based it on Julian Dates, but because they wanted it to be a worldwide system (where you could compare the dates and times of historic events, such as comets), I had to start taking into account locales - the local date and time (e.g. the different date son which countries changed from the Julian to Gregorian calendars).
It was fascinating stuff, but it soon got very, very complex, and was soon abandoned as unnecessary.
A lot of that is about internal computer clocks, rather than time per se, but yes, it's a minefield. ISTR some computer systems called the year 2000 a leap year, when it was not, as the programmers forgot the rules:
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year. *) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
But it was a leap year, as you note below.
Oh dear, some of the Y2K code I wrote may not work in 2100.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
We managed to tolerate part of the UK not allowing abortion for decades without it ever becoming a national political football.
Imagine if abortion was banned in all the English counties that voted Leave. We can't, thankfully.
Looks like some realism has seeped back in after the Kamala excitement yesterday on betfair.
Hasn't moved that much. Trump 1.6 vs Harris 2.8.
It steadily moved from 1.6 to 1.7 in increments yesterday as people got on the Shamala train - has retraced its steps today given she is regretably the same awful candidate she ever was.
Awww, look who ignored RCS's tip of Kamala at 40 last week.
Me too. I backed Kamala in the teens, long before she reached 40s, largely because Biden's age was hardly a state secret. I just wish I'd gone in again at 40s. As you would. I got Vance at a double figure price although I backed Cotton the same day, so really only half price. Buttigieg was an early pick at, erm, less than the price he has come back into overnight.
And that's why I cashed out and took my profits. As we approach the winning line, so markets become better informed, squeezing out any value, and we can easily be picked off by insiders with privileged information (as when Rishi's mates plunged on a July election).
I have no way of knowing whether Kamala will choose Kelly, Shapiro or one of the others. Worse, I might have an opinion, like many PBers, on who she *should* choose, which can be quite dangerous because that is not what the market will be settled on. Even if Kamala agrees with me on the ranking of the candidates, it only takes one 10-year-old tweet to surface and the top man is bottom.
I had a tiny bet on Harris to be Dem nominee at 24. Kicking myself I didn't bet more.
This is my photo for the day, and a question. It is the "Public Art" installation at "Fold Street" launched this afternoon by Samsung, with TfL, Taylor Herring, St Marks Studios and Iris (creative agency types I think). Do we have anyone who goes home that way? I'm interested to see what you think.
They have messed around with the readability of station signs, and installed various "folded" items in the middle of pavements. Imagine approaching that in a powerchair from the Right Hand Side in the dark.
For a fair comparison with a parallel for non-disabled people, what would happen if they replaced all the road signs at a junction with ones pointing in the wrong direction for "art", and for fun replaced manhole covers with identical looking ones made from thin plastic for the public to fall down?
If this is what it looks like, and I accept I can't know until I have seen a proper site report, Samsung are going to get their nuts somewhat roasted, and perhaps quite quickly. Baroness Tanni-Grey Thompson will have things to say, for a start.
It can be done creatively and safely, but I think they perhaps just did not think to think.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Strawman. Nobody argues for abortion to be compulsory.
Look at C20 history and how certain groups were treated *in the UK*. It did happen.
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
Why should women who live in states like North Carolina or Arizona have to face forced births because convicted felon Donald Trump put a bunch of extremists on the Supreme Court?
A strange couple of examples. Arizona's Territory-era ban isn't enforced and a 15 week limit is coming in; North Carolina allows elective abortion up to 12 weeks.
Of course, technically elective abortion is illegal in Great Britain.
Workfare in the United Kingdom is a system of welfare regulations put into effect by UK governments at various times. Individuals subject to workfare must undertake work in return for their welfare benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial (but not among SKS fans)
Workfare in the United Kingdom is a system of welfare regulations put into effect by UK governments at various times. Individuals subject to workfare must undertake work in return for their welfare benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial (but not among SKS fans)
After some thought I have decided not to do so. No reflection on the party itself, it's just that to show neutrality I would have to have joined the other parties as well and the combined membership fees was unaffordable.
If I had joined I would have ceded my vote to you and I am sure you would have cast it in the proper manner. Good luck in the election
Her aggressive questioning of Kavanaugh on the issue touched a nerve.
She was spot on. At his nomination Kavanaugh said Roe was “settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court” and that it is “entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis.” He also said that “as a judge” he would respect the Roe precedent.
“And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992,” he continued. “When that came up, the Supreme Court didn’t reaffirm it in passing.”
Kavanaugh went on to explain that Casey very carefully and explicitly reaffirmed Roe under the plurality opinion by then-Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter.
He's, to use a technical term, a lying shit.
Kamala Harris: Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
It will be a grim irony if Trump's decision to put these lying fools onto the SC (Kavanaugh was far from alone in his lies) ends up costing him re-election. FWIW (and subject to my repeated acknowledgements that I do not understand the American psyche at all) I think that it will. Abortion was always going to be a big element of this election but with Harris in the driving seat it may prove to be the central question. The irony is made all the more delicious in that I don't think Trump ever gave a damn about it.
A further irony is that Trump's position is surely the obvious way to detoxify the issue by removing it from national politics. Both sides need to be more tolerant of the existence of people within the United States who disagree with them.
They had a settled balanced position with Roe v Wade. Upending that was not an exercise in detoxification.
Evidently it wasn't settled, and balanced is clearly laughable.
It was settled for decades. And yes it was balanced. It was not that different to how we have it here - abortion neither banned nor compulsory.
Some parts of America allow partial late term abortions which are clearly murder?
There are crazies on both sides. As is ever the case with the USA
Workfare in the United Kingdom is a system of welfare regulations put into effect by UK governments at various times. Individuals subject to workfare must undertake work in return for their welfare benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial (but not among SKS fans)
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
Which bit SKS fans are in favour of forcing disabled to people work aren't they.
The NHS advisor they brought in certainly is
But then again Alan Milburn has always been a ****
I have just bought an artisanal cheese knife from juan the blacksmith who fashions daggars and swords from scrap metal in his own forge set in the 12th century walls of the fortified Templar town of Saint Eulalie-de-Cernon
The shards from a fractured, poorly made, cheese knife really detract from the whole cheese experience I find.
(I might consider a Japanese artisanal blacksmiths product, but with that one exception I'd avoid)
I very much doubt I’m going to use it for cheese. It’s insanely impractical. I will likely make it my new letter opener (for which it is perfect - long and slender)
I have a lot of experience with knives. I’m slightly obsessed
I actually paid £500 for one knife from a dude who forges them from old car parts on Bodmin Moor
A reminder that Brexit was as much about stopping future EU authoritarian insanities being imposed on this FREE REALM as about reversing the existing ones.
"The European Union is exploring a controversial proposal to establish a centralized “Asset Register,” a comprehensive database designed to track citizens’ assets across the bloc. This initiative aims to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, but has also raised concerns on privacy and data protection.
The proposed register would encompass a wide range of assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, securities, vehicles, art, and precious metals. The final list will be determined based on the outcomes of a feasibility study and subsequent legislative decisions."
Mark Kelly would seem the ideal candidate for VP .
His terrific back story , son of 2 police officers , flew combat missions and notably went onto become an astronaut who did 4 space missions . He’s devoted to his wife Gabby Gifffords who was nearly killed in a gun rampage and is just an all round lovely guy.
I think Josh Shapiro is a good candidate but his back story is unlikely to resonate as well with the swing states . He won Pennsylvania but that was against a total nutjob and the VP appeal needs to be broad in terms of the range of swing states IMO .
I think it’s between those 2 . I don’t see Buttigieg getting the nod, his sexuality whether we want to admit it or not will be an issue for some people.
Workfare in the United Kingdom is a system of welfare regulations put into effect by UK governments at various times. Individuals subject to workfare must undertake work in return for their welfare benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial (but not among SKS fans)
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
Which bit SKS fans are in favour of forcing disabled to people work aren't they.
The NHS advisor they brought in certainly is
But then again Alan Milburn has always been a ****
Given that disabled now covers millions of people with all sorts of conditions, most of whom are both quite capable of working and likely to benefit (mental health wise) from doing so, what is the issue?
Craig Mckinlay (ex MP) has no arms or legs but I'm sure would be outraged if you say he is incapable of working.
I am unbelievably glad I live in a country where abortion is not a live political debate, because everyone grasps that it isn’t a simple one.
In due course we might need to drop the age limit a smidge, but I think our position reflects reality, including the one that, like it or not, if you ban it then it will still happen on kitchen tables and people will die. I do not understand why Americans do not grasp this.
We've chosen, and chosen well, to keep all sorts of things out of politics. Religion is the obvious example, and the policy of 'just get on with it' has worked magnificently for centuries, and I hope that the mad mullahs of Ealing just do that. (I'm not sure there are any mad mullahs in Ealing). Sex! Tricky for us Brits - but it's the same thing - all a bit unpleasant and happens mostly behind closed doors for a reason, but the variety of it really isn't so important.
You might ask a teacher in Batley how well we are “keeping religion out of politics”
Thanks to Muslim immigration we now have a de facto blasphemy law backed up by a de facto death penalty
After some thought I have decided not to do so. No reflection on the party itself, it's just that to show neutrality I would have to have joined the other parties as well and the combined membership fees was unaffordable.
If I had joined I would have ceded my vote to you and I am sure you would have cast it in the proper manner. Good luck in the election
You would also have to live with the rest of us pointing out that you are/were a card carrying Tory for ever more.
A reminder that Brexit was as much about stopping future EU authoritarian insanities being imposed on this FREE REALM as about reversing the existing ones.
"The European Union is exploring a controversial proposal to establish a centralized “Asset Register,” a comprehensive database designed to track citizens’ assets across the bloc. This initiative aims to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, but has also raised concerns on privacy and data protection.
The proposed register would encompass a wide range of assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, securities, vehicles, art, and precious metals. The final list will be determined based on the outcomes of a feasibility study and subsequent legislative decisions."
Workfare in the United Kingdom is a system of welfare regulations put into effect by UK governments at various times. Individuals subject to workfare must undertake work in return for their welfare benefit payments or risk losing them. Workfare policies are politically controversial (but not among SKS fans)
"The neutrality of this article is disputed."
Which bit SKS fans are in favour of forcing disabled to people work aren't they.
The NHS advisor they brought in certainly is
But then again Alan Milburn has always been a ****
Given that disabled now covers millions of people with all sorts of conditions, most of whom are both quite capable of working and likely to benefit (mental health wise) from doing so, what is the issue?
Craig Mckinlay (ex MP) has no arms or legs but I'm sure would be outraged if you say he is incapable of working.
You don't even need to guess. Just look up what he said when Douglas Ross sacked him.
Well some right to die euthanasia supporters would have agreed with him, however he seems to be more conservative now on both euthanasia and abortion than he was
A reminder that Brexit was as much about stopping future EU authoritarian insanities being imposed on this FREE REALM as about reversing the existing ones.
"The European Union is exploring a controversial proposal to establish a centralized “Asset Register,” a comprehensive database designed to track citizens’ assets across the bloc. This initiative aims to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, but has also raised concerns on privacy and data protection.
The proposed register would encompass a wide range of assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, securities, vehicles, art, and precious metals. The final list will be determined based on the outcomes of a feasibility study and subsequent legislative decisions."
A reminder that Brexit was as much about stopping future EU authoritarian insanities being imposed on this FREE REALM as about reversing the existing ones.
"The European Union is exploring a controversial proposal to establish a centralized “Asset Register,” a comprehensive database designed to track citizens’ assets across the bloc. This initiative aims to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, but has also raised concerns on privacy and data protection.
The proposed register would encompass a wide range of assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, securities, vehicles, art, and precious metals. The final list will be determined based on the outcomes of a feasibility study and subsequent legislative decisions."
Comments
Morning Joe
@Morning_Joe
Democrats cautiously optimistic they finally have first female president
Brett Kavanaugh: I'm not thinking of any right now..
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1815770917571576231
During that exchange, he takes on the patented Tucker Carlson expression of dumb insolence.
You're getting HRC vibes?
They should not be optimistic. They should be terrified they are looking like they will lose and they should be working their socks off to find out where they are failing to convince and doing something. At least with a candidate who has energy and is clearly able to actually do the four year term things are looking a little better.
And she went to Wisconsin which is more than HRC did.
We also had submarines with nuclear weapons the Argentines didn't and a better trained army, whereas the Chinese had nuclear weapons like us and a bigger army so defending Hong Kong once the lease expired was never a realistic prospect in the same way. There was also no lease for the Falklands, it was permanently British as long as the inhabitants wished it that way
Black evangelicals are normally Democrat
And you (as you often do) inaccurately caricature what is said.
..This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy...
...A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation...
Albeit now out to about 85 on Betfair.
I'm so emotionally invested in this election, I really do see it as Light v Dark on the biggest stage, that I'm not sure I should also have a lot of money riding on the outcome. I'm thinking of netting my book right down to small profit/loss on Harris/Trump respectively. Probably I won't but I am considering it.
(I might consider a Japanese artisanal blacksmiths product, but with that one exception I'd avoid)
A right of personal liberty and protection of peoples' rights does not give the right to terminate human life up to birth, not least as that contradicts protecting potential life you mention and the judges mentioned. It is up to the states where they decide human life begins not the Federal govt
*) If the year is divisible by 4, it is a leap year.
*) Unless it is divisible by 100, in which case it is not a leap year.
*) Unless it is divisible by 400, in which case it is.
So 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 was. 2100 will not be, but 2400 will be. Some systems (I think Excel) called 1900 a leap year if you put it in a cell.
You're not a MAGA moron, are you?
In due course we might need to drop the age limit a smidge, but I think our position reflects reality, including the one that, like it or not, if you ban it then it will still happen on kitchen tables and people will die. I do not understand why Americans do not grasp this.
Any fule knows that you join the Catenians for that.
I was invited to join once but declined.
And yes it's abundantly clear that for most people how we have things here is 'normal' and thus the issue isn't worth any serious thought, but that doesn't make it so. To the previous point, inventing a constitutional right which was clearly not there wasn't balance.
Whatever you think about the subject, it was decided here by our elected representatives and if you want it change you need to win an election with sufficient electoral representatives.
That decision by unelected judges poisoned the US body politic and basically caused the culture wars.
It is a warning of the dangers of written constitutions elevating the unlected judges who interpret them over elected representatitives. And a warning of the dangers of federations (Hurrah for Brexit).
We now have neither other than the residual interference of a supranational proto constitutional court (for now).
Not leap years: 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, 2200, 2300, 2500
15 minutes added time in the football with Morocco leading Argentina 2-1.
Pitch invader during the added time.
Argentina equalise in the 16th minute of added time, Morocco fans throw Coke cups and bottles on the field, the ref takes the players off, and the TV broadcast assumes that's full time.
An hour later, VAR disallows the goal, and the players have to come back for three minutes in an empty stadium.
Which sees no further goals, and Morocco win.
Do we have anyone who goes home that way? I'm interested to see what you think.
They have messed around with the readability of station signs, and installed various "folded" items in the middle of pavements. Imagine approaching that in a powerchair from the Right Hand Side in the dark.
For a fair comparison with a parallel for non-disabled people, what would happen if they replaced all the road signs at a junction with ones pointing in the wrong direction for "art", and for fun replaced manhole covers with identical looking ones made from thin plastic for the public to fall down?
If this is what it looks like, and I accept I can't know until I have seen a proper site report, Samsung are going to get their nuts somewhat roasted, and perhaps quite quickly. Baroness Tanni-Grey Thompson will have things to say, for a start.
It can be done creatively and safely, but I think they perhaps just did not think to think.
https://news.samsung.com/uk/folded-london-bus-stops-the-traffic
On the third stroke, it will be 23:59:60...
And that's why I cashed out and took my profits. As we approach the winning line, so markets become better informed, squeezing out any value, and we can easily be picked off by insiders with privileged information (as when Rishi's mates plunged on a July election).
I have no way of knowing whether Kamala will choose Kelly, Shapiro or one of the others. Worse, I might have an opinion, like many PBers, on who she *should* choose, which can be quite dangerous because that is not what the market will be settled on. Even if Kamala agrees with me on the ranking of the candidates, it only takes one 10-year-old tweet to surface and the top man is bottom.
Keenly awaiting Prof Lichtman's prediction. See link:
https://www.thenationalnews.com/future/technology/2024/07/22/will-kamala-harris-win-2024-us-election-poll-predictor-allan-lichtman-assesses-the-race/
Heck, even Churchill said it wasn't worth more than a token effort at best. If it lasted slightly longer than Singapore that's only because Singapore had pretty much no landward defences at all.
Of course, technically elective abortion is illegal in Great Britain.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workfare_in_the_United_Kingdom
Thank you for the link to join the Conservative Party https://membership.conservatives.com/membership/Levels
After some thought I have decided not to do so. No reflection on the party itself, it's just that to show neutrality I would have to have joined the other parties as well and the combined membership fees was unaffordable.
If I had joined I would have ceded my vote to you and I am sure you would have cast it in the proper manner. Good luck in the election
There are crazies on both sides. As is ever the case with the USA
The NHS advisor they brought in certainly is
But then again Alan Milburn has always been a ****
I have a lot of experience with knives. I’m slightly obsessed
I actually paid £500 for one knife from a dude who forges them from old car parts on Bodmin Moor
https://www.atkinson-art.co.uk/product-category/wolf-dingo-chef-knives-for-valhalla/
"The European Union is exploring a controversial proposal to establish a centralized “Asset Register,” a comprehensive database designed to track citizens’ assets across the bloc. This initiative aims to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, but has also raised concerns on privacy and data protection.
The proposed register would encompass a wide range of assets, such as real estate, bank accounts, securities, vehicles, art, and precious metals. The final list will be determined based on the outcomes of a feasibility study and subsequent legislative decisions."
https://coinedition.com/eus-controversial-asset-registry-proposal-sparks-privacy-debate/
His terrific back story , son of 2 police officers , flew combat missions and notably went onto become an astronaut who did 4 space missions . He’s devoted to his wife Gabby Gifffords who was nearly killed in a gun rampage and is just an all round lovely guy.
I think Josh Shapiro is a good candidate but his back story is unlikely to resonate as well with the swing states . He won Pennsylvania but that was against a total nutjob and the VP appeal needs to be broad in terms of the range of swing states IMO .
I think it’s between those 2 . I don’t see Buttigieg getting the nod, his sexuality whether we want to admit it or not will be an issue for some people.
In @time, Trump’s nephew recounts a conversation w/ then-president Trump after 2020 White House meeting with disability advocates.
“Those people…” Trump said of people w/ complex care needs. “The shape they’re in, all the expenses, maybe those kinds of people should just die.”
https://twitter.com/AnnaBower/status/1816156132756369604
Craig Mckinlay (ex MP) has no arms or legs but I'm sure would be outraged if you say he is incapable of working.
Thanks to Muslim immigration we now have a de facto blasphemy law backed up by a de facto death penalty
Bonus points for guessing who will be excluded.
If you oppose such a measure then you support tax evasion and terrorism.
I am limited to what I can say professionally but it's not just the EU.