Elerond

Remember that time when there was only clean athletes competing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1988_Summer_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_100_metres The Men's 100 Meters at the 1988 Summer Olympics in Seoul, South Korea – frequently dubbed "the dirtiest race in history" – ended in controversy after Canada's Ben Johnson defeated defending champion Carl Lewis from the United States with a world record time of 9.79s, topping his own record of 9.83s that he set at the 1987 World Championships in Athletics in Rome. Johnson was not the only participant whose success was questioned. Lewis had tested positive at the US Olympic Trials for pseudoephedrine, ephedrine and phenylpropanolamine, medications available at the time in common cold remedies, but the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) cleared Lewis to participate at the games in Seoul. Christie was found to have metabolites of pseudoephedrine in his urine after a 200m heat at the same Olympics but was later cleared of any wrongdoing. Dennis Mitchell tested positive ten years later. Of the top five competitors in the race, only former world record holder and eventual bronze medalist Smith never failed a drug test during his career. Smith later said: "I should have been the gold medalist." Johnson had demanded that Lewis be stripped of his gold medal, but the IOC had no intention of redressing the issue, stating they operate under a three-year statute of limitations. In the ESPN documentary 9.79*, eventual silver medallist Christie states, and footage of the race shows, that Lewis "ran out of his lane... two or three times" during the race, which could have resulted in Lewis' disqualification had he impeded other competitors. The numerous athletes using performance-enhancing drugs at the time understood how long before a race, and possible drug test, they should stop using the drugs. Johnson has stated that André Jackson, a mutual friend of Johnson and Lewis, entered the drug testing area in Seoul to deposit stanozolol in the beer Johnson consumed to produce a urine sample. The CBC radio documentary, Rewind, "Ben Johnson: A Hero Disgraced" broadcast on September 19, 2013, for the 25th anniversary of the race, stated 20 athletes tested positive for drugs but were cleared by the IOC at this 1988 Seoul Olympics, and an IOC official stated that endocrine profiles done at those games indicated that 80 percent of the track and field athletes tested showed evidence of long-term steroid use although not all were banned. In addition, CBC Radio was told by its sources that NBC had threatened to withhold its second rights payment to the IOC due on completion of the 1988 Seoul Olympics games stating, "if these games collapse in scandal, we're out and that money's gone". That three years statue of limitations these days sound so strange, when IOC strips changes results of 4, 8, and 12 years old competitions quite often these days.

When I had pneumonia I specifically asked about that since I have 2 young nephews I see regularly and was told not to worry about it. One of them actually got pneumonia later (9 months later, and viral, so not from me) and while he had to go into hospital he didn't go into isolation or anything. So she was probably fine with that, corny/ fakeness etc notwithstanding. It's a damned if she has it, damned if she doesn't situation. The jist of it is that pneumonia comes in various different forms, some less contagious than others, and the thing is that the less contagious forms happen to be very very common amongst people with Parkinson's. The video I linked on the last page will explain it for you quite well. If she had a "normal" pneumonia case, then it's contagious and hugging that child was a big no-no. If it's not contagious, it adds evidence to claims she's suffering from Parkinson's, which does indeed seem to be the case as it explains some of her oddball outbursts and actions in the past, not to mention her history of falling down. Parkinson's is a serious disease. It will absolutely bother some voters to think that this candidate may not be capable of doing the job in a year's time. Sure enough, not even the bought-and-sold news outlets can do much to cover this story, because people are 1) Ticked off she's lying yet again, and 2) Legitimately questioning just how unhealthy she is. People with Parkinson's disease suffer from more severe symptoms compared to other people that have pneumonia, so it is quite safe bet to say that Clinton don't have Parkison's disease as she was able to continue her campaign even after getting pneumonia. Normal case of pneumomia regardless if it is bacterial or viral version has quite low contagious rate, as long as Clinton didn't cough directly towards child that she hugged, child's change to get pneumonia is nearly non-existent, as pneumonia bacteria and viruses are usually transmitted through droplet infection. But anyway it is poor manners to touch and hug other people if you know that you are sick.

I do feel sorry for her, on the health issues at least. On the political aspects she's again been her own worst enemy though. Right down to the cringe inducing photo op with the 'spontaneous' little girl outside Chelsea's apartment, as if pictures of that would displace her being half carried into a van from the news. What a surprise, you would find Putin a stronger leader Lets see ...Putin has destroyed the Russian economy, controls the media, has murdered journalists and illegally annexed parts of Georgia and Ukraine...yeah what a leader And you think he is more decisive than Obama, really? According to you and the Putin get- a-long-gang he was going to invade Turkey to teach them a lesson, actually defeat ISIS and " make a real difference in Syria because Putin knows how to get results " But he has been inconsistent in the bombing campaign, bombed hospitals and killed innocents and failed to win the war in Syria...and now they need the USA to end the war.....yes that's very decisive Zora Putin is strong leader in sense that his opposition in Russia is weak, his foreign policies are supported by significant economical and military power that he can use quite freely. But fact that he is strong leader don't mean that he is necessary good leader or leader that one should look as example how to run you country. But in foreign politics he should not be ignored or underestimated, because he is in control of significant resources and is in position to drive through his own agenda, which is why it is important (for president of USA) to understand what that agenda is and how you can negotiate with him.

https://twitter.com/ScottyLiterati/status/774895778817073152

Canada is member of commonwealth where US is not, so Canadians are higher class citizens and therefore have more equality and freedom to do things like border control

Attacking another's candidates base support is basic strategy in politics. Which is something that also Trump does. It is strategy that aims to associate people that general public or certain demographic don't like with other candidate, so that they will have higher threshold to vote that other candidate, which makes it easier to lure them to vote yourself. It isn't nice strategy, but politics and politicians rarely are nice.

Even if this were true (I don't subscribe to the 8chan megolamania delusion that google knows it exists, let alone cares enough about it to blacklist it) what does this have to do with root dns servers? Google is coorporation, not a government. It seem that 8chan isn't blacklisted from google searches. But they are but in very low priority, which means that non-direct searches will result only indirect links at best. And Google puts this message to direct searches. "Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page. Report child abuse content." It is reported that in 2015 for brief period even direct searches didn't provide any results from the site, only message about child abuse. Same reports also say that Google didn't comment why it happened. In January 2015 8chan.co domain was blacklisted by its domain registrar because it was reported containing child pornography and 8chan was moved under new domain 8ch.net. Where it is still even though old domain is back in use. I used to be that it wouldn't show at all on a direct search. The site content skirts the limits of legality and no one could make a case that it is moral but it certainly wasn't doing anything illegal. More so, it was a pretty hamhanded response on their part that they didn't just block the boards with questionable content but the entire domain. It would be akin to shutting down the entire Obsidian boards because of one questionable thread. Having control of DNS allows the UN to put pressure on websites to self regulate any content they deem inappropriate, and to stifle any online activism by taking down websites. So that things like this one which aren't made big public issues, or the DNC hack or Wiki Leaks are disrupted But they don't have control over DNS, only root servers. Domain registrars aren't under ICANN's control and they aren't moving under UN's control. I would point out that Wiki leaks is located outside of USA and therefore it isn't protected by US laws and USA is one the countries that has tried to take it down, like forcing Amazon stop hosting them and so on. Can't say why Google does what it does, but in my understanding 8chan don't moderate or remove questionable content. And there is no easy way to automatically sort out which 8chan boards have questionable content and which don't which is probably reason why Google has demoted whole domain. Google is quite heavy handed when it comes to such things, most likely because they don't want to spent money to sort them out.

They are Eurosceptic, they want to end free movement, dissolve the Euro, keep the common trade bloc, promote traditional family roles, are pro gun rights, etc. With multiculturalism a failure, immigration driving low skill wages down making the poor poorer, and the leftist feminist drive to destroy the traditional family I can see the appeal But some of these objectives seem inconsistent, you cant have the EU and the single market without the Euro as the currency and the central government in Brussels It surprises me people keep bringing this up as a reasonable objective ? More and more people are seeing this as a mistake and wish to decentralize, return to old currencies and work as partners instead. People are witnessing the erosion of the things that matter the most to them(their people, culture, heritage and identity) and the EU is actively collaborating in its acceleration and people are getting fed up with it. A soft democratic process of removing political power from Brussels, abolishment of the multicultural project (which is ironically enough destroying our cultural differences), forced integration, enforced borders and a sound policy of return of refugees will alleviate the worst of sociatal grievances and ensure a calmer future for all europeans nations. Then they can finally make the necessary structural changes to make sure that their central banks are not privately owned and controlled by their governments instead in order effectively destroy the cancer called 'globalism' (for more information on the last part, i would like to refer to the documentary 'The Princes of the Yen'). If not, then we will be heading into a manufactured crisis with a resulting war and a final death in the vein of the poem 'The Hollow Men' by T.S. Eliot. You raise some good points that are relevant to you and your personal experience which I'm sure is shared by many others in the EU In the past I have been a little condescending by these types of comments and said things like " you think you want this but you dont really " ....but I'll explain in more detail what I really mean When you say " People are witnessing the erosion of the things that matter the most to them(their people, culture, heritage and identity) and the EU is actively collaborating in its acceleration " what if you gained these things by leaving the EU but the consequence was the crash or utter dysfunction of your economy? You see basically every person on this forum who lives in the EU has probably only known about life in the EU, its not anyones fault but you guys all live in first world countries where the EU and your governments are functional. You are use to this and unintentionally take this for granted You complain about lack of sovereignty and immigrant quotas being enforced and I understand these things matter but imagine a failed healthcare system, broken government institutions, high unemployment or a government simply not caring what its citizens think. This the reality many countries and there citizens face outside the EU I am not fearmongering but I cannot see how any current member state , outside the UK, could in this current reality of such tight economic integration leave the EU and gets it old currency back and somehow be able to sustain its economy outside the EU....the economic impact would be so severe to the average citizen it would almost unimaginable So imagine a failed economy outside the EU but you have your sovereignty back ...would it matter ? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773601/UK-economy-proving-doubters-wrong-says-Theresa-amid-signs-country-avoid-recession-Brexit-vote.html I think economic collapse isn't something that is necessarily a big concern. It is so nice that British economy don't necessary collapse just because they had a vote.

Even if this were true (I don't subscribe to the 8chan megolamania delusion that google knows it exists, let alone cares enough about it to blacklist it) what does this have to do with root dns servers? Google is coorporation, not a government. It seem that 8chan isn't blacklisted from google searches. But they are but in very low priority, which means that non-direct searches will result only indirect links at best. And Google puts this message to direct searches. "Suspected child abuse content has been removed from this page. Report child abuse content." It is reported that in 2015 for brief period even direct searches didn't provide any results from the site, only message about child abuse. Same reports also say that Google didn't comment why it happened. In January 2015 8chan.co domain was blacklisted by its domain registrar because it was reported containing child pornography and 8chan was moved under new domain 8ch.net. Where it is still even though old domain is back in use.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations. The root name servers are distributed around the world for redundancy. Queries very seldom ever reach them because of caching technology. The root name servers are a . record and have records of the top level domains but the records are replicated between the root name servers. So it doesnt matter who manages them as many countries take house them Servers don't matter as much as content. They will try to dictate what content should be allowed, which will lead to what happens in despotic Communism: snitching about things that never happened to get someone in trouble and middle manager overregulating because they don't want to get in trouble with the higher ups. Plus if you think that they won 't come up with an excuse to go after competing servers then your are very naive. After all most people don't have enough tech know how to understand or care about this. I can understand that concern but end of the day the actual data is not the concern of the DNS system, DNS simply routes your query to the " www" or " "ftp " which is the actual server that contains the data. The root name servers dont know about the domains lower than the top level So yes some governments do block some internet sites but the ownership of the root name servers is important but it cant be used to block access to lower sites as this would crash many queries and make overall browsing inconsistent But they cant use competing servers as then you would need another similar system to DNS, like every company uses its own private DNS, and another competing DNS would be pointless as who would want to register with it ? For one they can dictate content, otherwise good bye being on the mainstream portion of the internet. Secondly, you're not seeing this situation as a whole; is like saying that controlling the roads has no bearing on you driving your car (Tolls will prove you wrong). The fact is that this will put globalist interests and national interests at odds when they're not aligned, which gives whomever is lining the pockets of the EU control over the Internet. They can't dictate the content. It is technically impossible. One, you assume that the people behind this have a good understanding of the Internet. Two they will use their authority to put pressure on sites, or outright ban them due to certain issues.(EG: why 8chan doesn't show on google searches) They don't need to completely erase content as long as people continue to trust institutions which they control, they only need to direct them to said institutions. USA is currently leading country in war against internet content and they don't seem to be able to win pirates even though they drive through laws all around world that removes people rights when it comes to piracy. Their ability to dictate internet domains has not helped them much in this fight. And it will not help any other instance who dictates what domains there are. 8chan don't show in google searches because they block googles indexing robots.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations. The root name servers are distributed around the world for redundancy. Queries very seldom ever reach them because of caching technology. The root name servers are a . record and have records of the top level domains but the records are replicated between the root name servers. So it doesnt matter who manages them as many countries take house them Servers don't matter as much as content. They will try to dictate what content should be allowed, which will lead to what happens in despotic Communism: snitching about things that never happened to get someone in trouble and middle manager overregulating because they don't want to get in trouble with the higher ups. Plus if you think that they won 't come up with an excuse to go after competing servers then your are very naive. After all most people don't have enough tech know how to understand or care about this. I can understand that concern but end of the day the actual data is not the concern of the DNS system, DNS simply routes your query to the " www" or " "ftp " which is the actual server that contains the data. The root name servers dont know about the domains lower than the top level So yes some governments do block some internet sites but the ownership of the root name servers is important but it cant be used to block access to lower sites as this would crash many queries and make overall browsing inconsistent But they cant use competing servers as then you would need another similar system to DNS, like every company uses its own private DNS, and another competing DNS would be pointless as who would want to register with it ? For one they can dictate content, otherwise good bye being on the mainstream portion of the internet. Secondly, you're not seeing this situation as a whole; is like saying that controlling the roads has no bearing on you driving your car (Tolls will prove you wrong). The fact is that this will put globalist interests and national interests at odds when they're not aligned, which gives whomever is lining the pockets of the EU control over the Internet. They can't dictate the content. It is technically impossible.

They are Eurosceptic, they want to end free movement, dissolve the Euro, keep the common trade bloc, promote traditional family roles, are pro gun rights, etc. With multiculturalism a failure, immigration driving low skill wages down making the poor poorer, and the leftist feminist drive to destroy the traditional family I can see the appeal They are just similar party as our Eurosceptic and anti-immigration party here in Finland that is currently in government that is cutting income from poor (which they were against in election), giving tax breaks for rich (which they were against in election), giving stick for unemployed people (which they were against in election), cutting occupational immigration and focusing in taking more refugees (which is opposite what they said in election), cutting from education (which they were against in election), cutting from elderly care and health care (which they were against in election), and so on. Because it seems that populism don't work when you need to make decision in real world.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations. Considering the decentralized american infrastructure, it's constitution and the system of checks and balances, i would say that ICANN is operating at its least lousy place and any move is for the worse. If you look history of ICANN you see that it has done lots of shady things. Also I would point out things under ICANN's control are commercial in nature as it controls what domains there are and how much they cost. Like how they created .sucks that works nearly only to shake money from brand owners as they buy .sucks domains to protect their brands but otherwise domain has not seen any real use. Also ICANN has allowed domain name hording which has forced companies pay big sums to get domains for themselves and forces them to buy and hold domains for possible use decades before they are even planing to launch products just to prevent people registering domains that they may use in future. Meaning that things haven't been that good in under US Department of Commerce oversight. Of course in under UN's oversight there is possible that most of the world will vote against western view of things, leading to different commercial options for domains, but some could argue that is democracy in action.

I would say that it is better idea than let one country decide who has right to have root name servers and what kind domains there can be. But I have my doubts that things will changes to any direction, as there is already Governmental advisory committee where there are representatives from most of world countries and observers from lots of international organizations.

Game will be good if they can keep same number of options through the game. Because there is always risk for doing same that Lionheart did, which making compelling and complex first area and then become just series of snoozefest fights.

BBC wrote good article about problems in comparing crime statistics between countries http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-19592372

About that media bias Here is study about media coverage during primaries. http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-presidential-primaries/

Most countries need economical growth to keep paying their debts, which prevents natural shrinking of economy, as they face threat crashing economy.

I didn't have clue who he was before Suicide Squad, even though I have seen three movies where he has been (Fight Club, "Girl, Interrupted", and American Psycho), and I would guess that I am not only one whom that is the case. So sudden hate towards could be because people actually noticed his acting.

Golly Gee Willikers! He done gone native! I guess all Americans should vote for Mr. Trump now! I see, Trump has decided to embrace political correctness now.

In personal freedoms it seems that both California (#16) and New York (#29) are ranked higher than Texas (#49) and Tennessee (#42). New Hampshire seem to also be good state for those that like personal freedoms as it is ranked #9 in those addition to be #1 in fiscal freedoms. Idaho seems to be the freest date for those who hate regulations, which seem to for fiscal sector (#8 ), but not for individuals (#45).

It's hardly that clear-cut, it rather depends on how you define science. Philosophy certainly isn't an empirical enterprise and does not study, or generate knowledge of, the world around us. At the very least that puts it in a very different category than the (other) branches of science. Excepting perhaps the so-called 'formal sciences' like mathematics, but for the same reason I would not consider those branches of science either. They're just very different things, and there is no clear unifying reason to lump them in together. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the (empirical) sciences branched out from philosophy. There didn't used to be a very clear distinction between the two activities, they rather bled together and were generally engaged in by the same people. It seems more accurate to say that they branched off from each other, developing and evolving into the forms they have now. Philosophy has undergone quite an evolution of its own, as an activity it is vastly removed from the likes of Descartes and Kant, let alone the ancient Greeks. The Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition at any rate, who knows what the Continentals are ever on about (and let us not deign to speak of Eastern "philosophy"). Philosophy is mostly theoretical science, where people study things by theoretical research methods, although there is also empiric research methods (Aristotle, Greek philosopher was big advocate of empiric research and it is seen as his legacy that empiric research focused branches of science were born). But of course we also have theoretical physics and similar branches in empiric research focuses on sciences that focus mostly in theoretical research. And I would argue that to the extent that his work was empirical, it wasn't philosophy. Just because he is chiefly known as a philosopher, doesn't mean that everything he did constitutes philosophy. And again, there is generally a vast difference between what scientists do and what philosophers (and in the same vein, mathematicians) do. These operate on rather distinct principles, those of science being fundamentally empirical and those of philosophy and mathematics decidedly not. The boundaries between them aren't necessarily always clear-cut, but that in itself is no reason to conflate the different disciplines (the distinctions between different branches of science, or different branches of philosophy, are far murkier, but meaningful nonetheless). Even the more theoretical parts of physics are still aimed at modeling, understanding, predicting the physical world; it may be more distant from the empirical data than other branches of physics, but it is still grounded in it nonetheless. Philosophy and mathematics on the other hand, are not. He was philosopher, who was behind classical model of scientific method and one of the founders of natural philosophy (way of study which modern natural sciences are based). But with increase of knowledge about nature, university, etc. there was need for more and more specialized fields of study, which lead to modern divination of sciences, where natural sciences study the material universe, social science study people and societies, formal sciences study non-empirical things and philosophy that ponders meanings behind things. Definitions of science sometimes include formal sciences and philosophy and sometimes they exclude them because they don't use empiric methods, which means that they don't use scientific method. But natural sciences and social sciences rely and use knowledge produced by formal sciences and philosophy, which make them integral part of science even if people exclude them from definition of science (whole debate what is science and what is not is part of philosophy of science for example).

French people didn't like that tourists took pictures of them, and then other French people come in defense of tourist and said that tourists have right to took those pictures of those other French people and then these two groups of French people started to fight and then more French people showed up armed with harpoons and hatchets and then people got injured. Typical French behavior. Totally. Here i was the other day with a colleage of mine from France at a local cafeteria, sipping a latté and accidently took a selfie with him in frame. Before i knew it, his friends Pierre, Louis, Jules and the rest of the gang armed with harpoons and machetes jumped out and started to threathen me because i was conducting myself in a very anti-french manner when a took my photo. But that's the french for you, i can tell ya. I take that you haven't watched that French Netflix show "A Very Secret Service"

Thaos is willing to commit genocide and even worse things just to keep his religion only religion in world, by preventing people questioning Which isn't pro....He wants to use use his Artificial Intelligences to control.... He believes that those machines are gods, or at least close to god than anything can come and they are only things that keep world running as it is. For him they are center of religion, center of everything that he believes in. So I would argue that he is clearly pro religion. Close to gods isn't believing in gods. Believing they have immense power, isn't believing they're gods. He knows they're simply products of his science. You don't necessary need gods in religion. "Religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called "an order of existence"". Religion usually involves belief in supernatural forces, especially gods that control or people and who people are accountable.

It's hardly that clear-cut, it rather depends on how you define science. Philosophy certainly isn't an empirical enterprise and does not study, or generate knowledge of, the world around us. At the very least that puts it in a very different category than the (other) branches of science. Excepting perhaps the so-called 'formal sciences' like mathematics, but for the same reason I would not consider those branches of science either. They're just very different things, and there is no clear unifying reason to lump them in together. It's also a bit of a stretch to say the (empirical) sciences branched out from philosophy. There didn't used to be a very clear distinction between the two activities, they rather bled together and were generally engaged in by the same people. It seems more accurate to say that they branched off from each other, developing and evolving into the forms they have now. Philosophy has undergone quite an evolution of its own, as an activity it is vastly removed from the likes of Descartes and Kant, let alone the ancient Greeks. The Anglo-Saxon philosophical tradition at any rate, who knows what the Continentals are ever on about (and let us not deign to speak of Eastern "philosophy"). Philosophy is mostly theoretical science, where people study things by theoretical research methods, although there is also empiric research methods (Aristotle, Greek philosopher was big advocate of empiric research and it is seen as his legacy that empiric research focused branches of science were born). But of course we also have theoretical physics and similar branches in empiric research focuses on sciences that focus mostly in theoretical research.