Awesome, thanks!
Anyone got links to the Clinton team filling and the Durham response filings?
Every conservative voter knows this game. This is the game we have been playing all of our voting lives - compromise our principles in order to vote in the "lesser of two evils."
Look where it's gotten us.
Ukraine lost 91 out of their 55 helicopters? Who made this chart, a 5 year old who hasn't learned subtraction yet?
I don't see how this is good for insurance companies. If anything, this costs them more money. Now people on cheap insurance can buy insulin for $35. The insurance company will have to make up the difference and pay the drug company the rest of the cost.
Wouldn't it be just by his feet, which are not in the frame so you can't see it?
I think overall the lighting is a bit goofy so maybe that's a sign, but the shadow thing is easily explained.
Can you heal?
Computer guy here. Root certificates are not encryption keys. There's a big difference between certificates and keys: certificates are public, keys are private. Certificates do not grant you access to anything. They only allow you to verify the authenticity of sites you already have access to. Anyone can have certificates, they are meant to be public.
This concept is fundamental to public key infrastructure. If you are interested you can search for more info on this topic.
Computer guy here. Root certificates are not encryption keys. There's a big difference between certificates and keys: certificates are public, keys are private. Certificates do not grant you access to anything. They only allow you to verify the authenticity of sites you already have access to. Anyone can have certificates, they are meant to be public.
This concept is fundamental to public key infrastructure. If you are interested you can search for more info on this topic.
Man, judging by the responses I'm getting, it seems nobody got the point I was trying to make. So I think I should just spell it out.
Being able to tell a dog when you see one, is not the same as being able to define what a dog is. For example I'm pretty sure I can tell what is or isn't a dog when I see an animal. But if you ask me to define what a dog is, I don't think I'll do a very good job. Mainly, I don't know exactly what distinguishes a dog from a wolf. Maybe one good way to define a dog that distinguishes them from wolves is to say they are domesticated animals. But then, there are feral dogs too, so it's not quite right. There's probably a physical trait that sets dogs and wolves apart, but I don't know it.
The point is, just because I know a dog when I see one, doesn't mean I can give you a good definition of dog. And I think there are probably a lot of people like me.
So you claim you know what a dog is. I ask you can you define a dog is. And your answer is fuck off leftist, nobody likes you.
Sounds like you are a leftist to me. This is one of the left's favorite tactics, claim to have something, but when challenged, and they've got nothing, resort to personal attacks.
So if somebody asks you to "define what is a dog", they are playing a semantic game?
Are you saying all species under Canidae are dogs, or only some species are?
Did you know the red fox, Vulpes vulpes, is a member of the Canidae family? Are foxes dogs?
I actually interpreted it differently. Notice how the movie actually had a fake period scare first, and then when the panda problem happens, the mom tells the dad "it's not the period problem, it's a different problem!"
It seems to me that they are concerned that people will think the panda is a metaphor for periods, and so made sure to include periods first, and then introduce the panda, so they can be "look, it's a different problem! it's not a metaphor for periods!"
At least that's how I saw it.
The information comes from the AMA website here: https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/cpt/covid-19-cpt-vaccine-and-immunization-codes
The document she's showing seems to be Appendix Q - which is a big table summarizing the various codes.
The website also has several other documents which goes into each code in more depth. For example, if you want to find out more about code 91307, which is a version of the Pfizer vaccine that seems to have lower dosage than the original 91300 version, you can see that near the bottom there is an October 2021 publication that has the info for code 91307.
Direct link to that doc here: https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/cpt-assistant-guide-coronavirus-october-2021.pdf
In this doc we see what code 91307 is about:
"Newly established COVID-19 vaccine product code 91307 describes the new Pfizer two-dose pediatric tailored vaccine. In contrast to the adult formulation, which uses a 30 mcg/0.3 mL ready-to-use formula, the vaccine for patients ages 5 through 11 requires reconstitution using a diluent to reach the appropriate dosage of 10 mcg/0.2 mL."
There should be a document describing each code and why that code was created/what makes each code different.
Hmm...I'm not sure how you can get that meaning, but it is definitely a run-on sentence and so I think it's certainly possible to interpret it in multiple, ambiguous ways. Here's how I interpreted it:
officials | found | more than 1,600 locally transmitted cases since March 4 | through mass testing
Officials - subject
Found - verb
more than 1,600 locally transmitted cases since March 4 - what they found
through mass testing - how they found it
Maybe you can help me see how to get the other interpretation by diagramming it differently.
I don't get it. What's wrong with the grammar here?
That's an interesting question. This is the text of the NATO treaty:
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm
Relevant for this is Article 1:
"The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."
So the answer to the question of whether supplying arms to Ukraine violates the NATO treaty seems to depend on what the UN says. If the UN says that Russia is the aggressor and that supplying arms to Ukraine is allowed, then NATO treaty says that it's okay.
Michael Sussmann works at Twitter? This is the first time I'm hearing of this. Do you have a source on this?
I don't get #4, the AF1 picture. Why is there a big Apple logo in the left side picture? What what does it mean when someone found a version of the picture without the Apple logo? What does it prove?
I think I get what you are trying to say. But I'm not sure about one piece of this. Where do you get:
NO_VAX[SUM(INSTANCES OF ADVERSE EVENT)]
So this would require a list of adverse events experienced by people who didn't get the vaccine, right? Basically the control group.
Is this information in the document? I read most of it and it seems to be only adverse events of vaxxed people. Not control group?
It's a Texas thing https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/15/uvalde-school-officers-texas-shootings/