2-factor authentication on their site, so to log in, you have to get a code on your phone
What about people who only use WiFi? Anyway you might consider two different phones, one for sensitive transactions like banking and another for ordinary use.
On a slightly related topic, I'm thinking of buying a "new" unlocked phone, older model now discounted, and having it rooted and upgraded from Android 4 to 6. It has a few extra features that I want, and I haven't found a reliable root & upgrade method, but someone with more experience than I quoted a reasonable price to do it. Would I be saving time by trusting him, or would I be inviting malware and problems?
In the video, I see vertical gaps between the sides of the bricks. Those would need to be sealed somehow, at least for a house in a cold climate.
I like some of the ideas I've seen for machines that pour concrete or assemble concrete bricks like Lego, with holes for wires and pipes, and portholes on the inside for access. I like also the idea of a machine that recycles concrete. The secrets of ancient Roman concrete have been re-discovered in recent years, so you could theoretically design your own house and have machines build it, and if you decide to move the next buyers can recycle it and build their own idea, like an enormous 3D Etch-A-Sketch. Likewise apartment buildings could proceed from approval to occupancy much faster than they do now, which would eliminate SF's housing shortage if the city ever decides to allow taller buildings.
Would Citizens United have gotten through a court with two Gore appointments?
That decision matters less than partisans claim. Corporations have been associations of persons since the 19th century. Prior to Citizens United, if corporate shareholders wanted to use corporate money to influence elections, then they were restricted to means chosen effectively by major party insiders. Citizens United either enabled or confirmed (depending on your POV) a new or existing (again, depending on POV) right to spend directly, including ads to support or denounce specific candidates.
A better response would be to say religious organizations can do the same but religion is not a "charity" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code. BTW, Catholic "charities" gets 90% of its $$$ from government, including Obamneycare $ to hospital corporations, buying a lot of influence; they can ignore your "living will" if it conflicts with their religion, for example, and use you as the next Terry Schiavo with now infinite $, "no lifetime caps." If you want to blame Alito and Roberts for something, start with exempting corporate religions from laws of general application. "Thanks, Robertscare." Then-Senator Obama was right to vote against Roberts, and then Roberts messed up Obama's oath of office and made Obamneycare even worse. BTW, you have tried to defend Democrats by citing the 60-vote filibuster rule, which they keep extending even though it isn't in the Constitution; you seem never to ask why they didn't use that to block Roberts and Alito.
Google "nader voters regret" and take in the sheer volume of articles and open letters written by people who did a noble, principled thing in 2000 and voted their conscience, not outcomes.
The devil will take you for your sins. Whack!
Partisans and sectarians share a trait: refusing to ask the right questions. Sectarians waste time asking charlatans how to help an omnipotent deity. (Hint: they can't. It's a tautology: no omnipotent deity can ever need your help, and obviously no omnipotent deity can ever need you to pay a charlatan to speak purportedly on his/her behalf.) Partisans fail to ask why Gore conceded the election before the votes had even been counted. (Hint: if Gore had insisted on counting all the votes, which he never did, then any full counting method would have shown he had got more votes than any other candidate, both in Florida and nationwide.) Gore chose instead a litigation strategy that ended up legitimizing his premature concession, by demanding only partial recounts. Partisans fail to ask why, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House in 2009 and 2010, they chose not to enact electoral reform. Federal Democrats could have enacted legislation to ensure every voter would have access in person to voting booths, whether on election day or before, and to ensure that every valid vote would be counted, but Democrats chose not to. State Democrats could have enacted ranked choice voting in a majority of states, but chose not to; they are now enacting NPVIC and absentee voting, which would make buying or stealing elections even easier. Thus Democrats can continue to campaign on fear, making their most frightened voters vote their fears instead of their hopes, and then sell those voters to the patronage networks that exploit them. If Democrats were worried about Jill Stein, who ran also in 2012, then why aren't they enacting ranked choice voting to enable voters to rank her first and then the Democratic nominee second? (Hint for math professors: I limited to two choices due to the Gibbard–Satterthwaite theorem, which applies to mechanisms that rank three or more.) If you live in a "battleground state", then you should consider whether your vote might tip the balance in favor of your least preferred candidate, but either way you should tell your state legislators to enact ranked choice voting with paper ballots listing a first and second choice, and optical scan machines to ensure all votes are counted accurately.
The goal of Islam is get to paradise, and the only sure way to get there is to die fighting for Islam. Describing what to do in war (and remember, Islam is always at war, especially when NATO and the Saudis are actually waging war in Syria and other Muslim countries) Chapter 8 of the Koran says:
As per 8:60, the strategy is to strike terror. To do that, the jihadis must attack as many different types of targets as possible, so the enemy (that's us) can't feel safe anywhere. The violence will continue as long as Islam continues. Although most Muslims don't personally participate in terror attacks, they believe in a doctrine that commands them to do so, and wherever possible they elect politicians who believe in the same doctrine. The initially sporadic jihadi attacks mark the first wave of Islamization, followed by destabilizing the government and imposing Sharia. In most countries with Muslim majorities, a majority of Muslims support Sharia. Note that submitting to Islam is no defense, either, because it subjects you and your family to all sorts of penalties including the death penalty for apostasy. The terror attacks are the first symptoms that should warn you of a potentially terminal disease.
The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.
It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina."
Roosh espouses traditional Muslim values about women? Please explain.
@resistance, you might want to see this video of Roosh explaining in his own words, starting at 2:00. He says his ideas come from being raised by his Muslim father and growing up with Muslim beliefs. He says he is "basically introducing traditional Islamic values...because these values are good...." He says all his views come from Islam, and he's been praying to Allah and Mohamed to keep him safe in Canada from Canadian "Islamophobia". He plays the race card on the grounds that he isn't white and so his opponents must check "their privilege." He has elsewhere been accused of threatening to kill people for criticizing Islam (as Islam says to do). Note also he has proposed legalizing rape on private property.
I found finally an article that explains why Twitter banned Milio, though it doesn't explain why Twitter hasn't banned Roosh V, who is worse.
There is no explanation in this article as there was no discrimination/harassment by Milo.
In fairness, I didn't call it a justification, only an explanation. I had never heard of "brigading" and so I couldn't understand the connection between what Milo said personally and what Twitter did. The linked article explained the connection, which in Twitter's opinion justified what Twitter did.
In my own opinion, Roosh V is much worse, including accusations that he threatens to kill people for criticizing Islam (as Islam says to do). Check out this video of Roosh starting at 2:00. He says his ideas come from being raised by his Muslim father and growing up with Muslim beliefs, and says all his ideas are a "version of Islam." He says he is "basically introducing traditional Islamic values...because these values are good...." He says all his views come from Islam, and he's been praying to Allah and Mohamed to keep him safe in Canada from Canadian "Islamophobia". Note also he proposes legalizing rape on private property. To me, all that seems much worse than anything Milo said.
I am curious why Twitter banned Milo but kept Roosh V. Maybe TWTR is more afraid of offending potentially violent Muslims including Saudi sovereign wealth managers than of offending Milo readers.
By definition, the word Muslim means "a believer in or adherent of Islam." Per Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death. Anybody who has renounced Islam should have genuine concern about Muslim immigration. I cannot understand why anybody would "respect" a doctrine that threatened his own family, or want to import people who believe in it. I don't want to offend anyone (other than Muslims, who are allowed to say whatever they want to say about me), but I hope Democrats might please reconsider their current policy of invade&import.
A slight chance. Something drove Goldwater Girl Hillary Clinton to switch to the Democrats and campaign for McGovern, and then something drove her to the DLC. She is a devoted pragmatist, who believes firmly that half a loaf is better than none. She can't really deny her record of ideological flexibility, but she could turn it into a virtue by showing willingness to compromise with the voters. She has a few things weighing her down, but she could still win on a platform that polls better. Obamacare continues to poll around -10, with more bad news arriving regularly, e.g. premium increases. 80% of Republican voters agree with Donald Trump's suggestion to pause Muslim immigration, with more Islamic attacks happening all too often; she has also a long record of disagreeing with much of what Islam says and does, so rejecting it would make sense. Considering her ambition and the fact she is the most qualified major candidate running this year, and her record of evolving positions to match the majority of voters, it's conceivable she might cast off some of the policy planks that are weighing her down among the voters she needs to win.
I hope the numbers cause her to change positions on something. For example, renouncing her Saudi sponsors and apologizing for Serbia, Iraq, Libya, and Syria, and agreeing that it would be entirely constitutional for a President to ban Muslim immigration. Alternatively, renouncing her sponsors in the medical industrial complex (the even bigger MIC) and ObamneyCare/RobertsCare/HeritageFoundationCare, FKA "Hillary's Plan" and Clintoncare. The Democratic convention offers possibly the last chance that the Democrats might correct course in time for the November election.
BTW, there might be some October surprises. For example, all of her emails, via Wikileaks. Or, Mike Pence quits the race to spend more time with his family, who seem suddenly a lot richer than they did before; that might "force" Donald Trump to pick a new VP.
immigration of Koreans to the U.S...Immigration from Nicaragua went up profoundly beginning in 1986
I wonder how many arrived saying they were communists, or that they believed in a doctrine that commanded the violent overthrow of American government and its replacement with Marxism. I doubt it was very many, though if so then the implications could certainly have been profound.
You appear to be conflating ethnicity with belief, which would be racist and typical of the current Democratic party line.
As I wrote above, recessions "can free up some existing local supply as people move away," and your charts add a good point that recessions can have the same effect nationally if people shed second homes or downsize and double up. The OP headline is, however, about building. Building more units than depreciation/replacement would result in more supply and thus lower prices, at least if you can build them in the places where there is demand. Cities are becoming less affordable because they restrict the number of new units below the level of supply that would make prices affordable. Flyover areas might be affordable to retired people, but not to people who need to work where their employers are.
we had a major build up in home construction from 2002-2006... none of that made housing more affordable
I think that resulted from excess demand created by the subprime mortgage bubble. When that bubble burst, the various bailouts (by whatever alphabet soup acronym, TARP+ZIRP+QE+HAMP) propped up prices that would otherwise have become affordable.
Respectfully, I think you are looking at national data when real estate is always local. Also, the correlation between cost and value is always imperfect. Housing in flyover states might be getting bigger, which might cost more to build, but making a Mississippi house bigger does not make it more valuable to someone who wants to live in the SFBA.
Recessions don't build supply. They can reduce demand, and they can free up some existing local supply as people move away, but ultimately the only way to increase supply is to build at rates above the rate of depreciation/replacement.
Some cities have zoning and planning rules that have cannibalized supply. For example, in Manhattan, smaller older units get replaced by premium luxury buildings designed by celebrity architects and featuring Italian marble tubs to attract the TV cameras of Robin Leach. In that scenario, they are replacing more units with fewer units, reducing supply rather than increasing it, due to zoning and planning.
Cost does not determine value. If somebody tells me that an analog CRT television was handmade, with each winding carefully done by artisans trained in Bhutan, that doesn't make me want to pay more for it than I would pay for a better TV made at a fraction of the cost. Likewise houses: a palatial mansion might cost more to build than a tiny apartment, but if the mansion stands in northern Kamchatka, I'm not buying.
I've been using invade&import, or invade&import&surveil.
Synonyms for conscription might help. Invade&import is basically drafting Syrian Sunnis to crusade into NATO on behalf of Saudi Islam.
Alternatively, synonyms for suicide. Is there a Christian or European form of Seppuku? Christian martyrdom? The phrase "suicide by cop" might lend itself to "suicide by invade&import," but that has too many words.
I am trying to think of historical precedents wherein some other civilization invaded and imported hostile populations in order to prop up its own military industrial complex and surveillance state, but I can't think of any examples prior to the present. Is there perhaps another species that produces anything like it? Maybe something like Toxoplasma gondii, a microorganism that reproduces in cats and infects mice, causing infected mice to become attracted to cats?
Psychology might offer some insights, for example "Suicide and masochism: The evolving relationship between guilt, suffering, self-attack and suicide". The phrase "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (TDS) has got me thinking about "Marriage Equality Derangement Syndrome" (MEDS). In my opinion, MEDS causes closet cases and their scared wives to become so unhinged that they seek anything, even death, to make it stop. For example, look at the Vatican claiming "humanity" had been defeated when Ireland voted for marriage equality, and then the Vatican demands European Christians must import more Muslims, who line up consistently to vote against it. MEDS wouldn't explain why much of the European left also supports importing Islam, but that might result from delusion to the point of hypnosis by NATO government and commercial media, and some slight congruity between some feminists and Muslims (e.g. London banning posters that show women in bikinis).
The class immediately erupted with commentary. It was obvious, they said, that loyalty was paramountnot [sic] a single student said theyd [sic] snitch. They were unequivocally unconcerned about who was harmed in this hypothetical scenario. This troubled me
It troubled me too, partly because it comes from an unrelated article that says nothing about the OP headline.
I thought the Turing Test had assumed computers would advance to a level where someday they might become indistinguishable from people. It did not occur to me that people might emulate misprogrammed bots. I propose a name for this development: the Tovbot Conundrum.