Agreed,
Of course, I do also need to take issue with the basic claim from the article, given that I think it's 64% of the fatalities from the virus have been men so we've got another "women are the primary victims of war" scenario going on.
I'll agree with the people who mentioned Kaspersky being good. Personally, though, I've been using Bitdefender for the last several years without any issues.
Also agree with Lurker404's list of other stuff to do to protect your computer.
In fact, Lincoln offered to surrender Fort Sumter, if only the Virginia secession convention would end its session without passing an ordinance of secession. "A state for a fort is no bad business," he said.
Lincoln had no intention of doing that, ever. That quip was made after Virginia's first vote about secession (which was on February 13th), where they chose not to secede. After that, the Confederacy sent a delegation to DC, offering to buy the fort and Lincoln and almost his entire cabinet turned them down outright, because they didn't want to be seen as legitimizing the Confederacy.
On April 4th a 2nd vote was taken by Virginia, which again failed (by a 2/3 to 1/3 vote). That was the same day the Union sent a supply convoy to resupply Sumter. (Note that this was the 2nd time the Union tried to reinforce and resupply the fort - Buchanan had sent a relief ship back on January 9th which was repulsed. The fact that the first effort failed likely - in my opinion anyway - led to Lincoln's decision to send an entire fleet - including warships - in the second resupply attempt).
After the fort was taken, Lincoln demanded troops from every state still in the union, "as follows: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware, Arkansas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, one regiment each; New York 17 regiments; Pennsylvania, 15 regiments; Ohio, 13; New Jersey, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, four regiments each; Illinois and Indiana, six regiments each; Virginia, three regiments,Massachusetts, North Carolina, and Tennessee, two regiments each."
That is what triggered Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia to go. Kentucky did not secede, but essentially told Lincoln to f*** off, and Missouri had its own miniature civil war about what they wanted to do (which resulted in Union forces sending the governor of Missouri into exile within a couple months).
Lincoln wanted to make sure to paint the South as the aggressors, not himself.
I'll agree there as that is what Lincoln wanted people to think. And the Confederate Secretary of State agreed as well, saying that attacking the fort "will lose us every friend at the North. You will only strike a hornet's nest. ... Legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death. It is unnecessary. It puts us in the wrong. It is fatal." But, while he was good at playing the optics angle, Lincoln had multiple opportunities to keep the peace and chose not to take it. He could have just had Anderson surrender the fort outright, and chose not to. He could have taken the deal to have the fort bought out, and chose not to. He could have decided not to try to resupply the fort. And even after the fort fell, he could have agreed with his "no bad business" line and just let it go, but pressed the issue directly causing 4 more states to secede. But at every turn, he decided to keep playing chicken with Beauregard, and eventually Beauregard blinked with artillery fire.
Was demanding the surrender of the fort justified, though? Obviously in hindsight it was a bad idea, but having a hostile power retain - and keep resupplying - a fort with 60 guns in the middle of your main harbor, when the owners of said fort refuse any negotiations, I don't see how that situation could have lasted any length of time without exploding. Especially when the Confederates knew there was a relief convoy on the way, and when they asked again for Anderson to surrender his response was, in essence "I'll surrender in a couple days, but only if the relief convoy doesn't arrive first"
Chudy found that racially sympathetic whites overwhelmingly desired a lenient sentence for a criminal of one race, and a harsh sentence for a criminal of another race, even for the exact same crime.
Chudy’s research yields other surprising findings, chiefly that “racially sympathetic” whites are not equally sympathetic on class or gender issues. “Racial sympathy is foremost a racist attitude,” she states.
Fixed those quotes for her
“It is simply a masterpiece,” Cristian Albu, Christie’s international director of postwar and contemporary art, said of Warrior.
This is why I can't take any modern artist or art critic seriously. No, it is not a masterpiece. As you said, this is something that would come out of early elementary school. It is total crap.
And not only can they fit a dig at Trump in, but they curiously avoid virtually all info about the (suspected) perp. No photo of him (though they had no problems splashing the photos of people like Sandman and Rittenhouse all over the internet and TV 24/7), no mention of the race of the perp, not even any mention of his physical build even though we get height and weight of the victim. All we get is a single mention of his name and that he was male. How curious...
Punched a Nazi trait: Negative effect of "Irritable to other people"
Guy notices it and freaks out.
To quote from article:
“SIX DAYS OF YELLING ABOUT THE NAZI SHIT IN STATE OF DECAY 2. RADIO SILENCE. THEN BLOCKED,” he exclaimed. “GONNA MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT YOU NAZI F—S.”
Sounds like the trait describes you perfectly accurately dude. Very irritable to other people. The devs really should have legit blocked the guy given that he spent a week spamming them.
No, people will call you an SJW when you shout that minor (or even made-up) incidents are violent hate crimes, while ignoring (or even supporting) violent crimes simply because of surface-level characteristics of the victim.
What is the purpose of NATO, anyway?
I get what it was, back in like the 50s or whenever it started. A mutual defense agreement against the USSR and its satellites in the Warsaw Pact.
These days? Yeah, sure, Putin is no peacenik (see his "annexation" of Crimea half a decade back) but even if he wanted to trying to send tanks across all of Eastern Europe would hopefully provoke a mass response to stop that, NATO or no (though, given how everyone didn't do much beside wring their hands when he did take over Crimea, I have my doubts. Of course, given that NATO and the UN just joined in the hand wringing, they demonstrated their functional uselessness too).
About the only thing actually accomplished by NATO seems to be making the US to pay to maintain military bases in other countries whose "enlightened" citizens constantly go on about how the US spends too much on the military. And, frankly, I agree, lets slash the military budget by starting with all those oversees bases.... oh, wait, that was tried a couple years ago and led to more mass outrage from the "enlightened".
What do you mean they can't explain it? It's simple to explain. Power-drunk bureaucrats want to maintain their power so they come up with an insane theory to justify why they need to keep in power. After all, the Imperial College model had no basis in reality and yet was sufficient to keep the lockdowns going worldwide for a year.
We Are Done Dying? Ready to stop being gang shit, going on abortions like others go to the nail salon and doing fentanyl? No? Then you have made your choice.
How dare you, you bigot? You're not allowed to mention that 1 in 3 deaths among black men under the age of 20 is a homicide, or that 1 in 4 deaths among those 20-44 is a homicide (and it is far and away the leading cause of death in both age groups)! If you do, people might start digging into the data and seeing that over half of murder victims in the US are black, and that the assailant is also black in about 89% of those young black men dying (about 48% of all homicides).
Also, "fun" fact - I looked up that NAACP campaign, and one of the first things on it is "sign this petition for justice for Jacob Blake!" Because obviously cops should just let armed people who go for a knife go when they've been called in on a domestic disturbance.
As crazy as it is that they said that, this line from the article is even more concerning to me:
“We will be reunited with our friends and family – all we have to do is take the vaccine,” said one woman to camera.
"Oh no, trust us, everything is fine. The vaccine isn't mandatory. You just want to get injected so you can go back to normal, don't you?"
"Before you terminate anybody, you have to really be able to show why that particular person is going to pose a significant, or they call it a direct threat," employment attorney Felicia Ennis said.
Lets ask the CDC.
Do I need to wear a mask and avoid close contact with others if I have gotten 2 doses of the vaccine?
And website says.... (archive link is here, but unfortunately the answer is hidden behind dropdowns and that doesn't seem to work on any archive site so the original )
Yes. To protect yourself and others, follow these recommendations: Wear a mask over your nose and mouth. Stay at least 6 feet away from others. Avoid crowds. Avoid poorly ventilated spaces. Wash your hands often. It’s important for everyone to continue using all the tools available to help stop this pandemic as we learn more about how COVID-19 vaccines work in real-world conditions. Experts are also looking at how many people get vaccinated and how the virus is spreading in communities. We also don’t yet know whether getting a COVID-19 vaccine will prevent you from spreading the virus that causes COVID-19 to other people, even if you don’t get sick yourself. CDC will continue to update this page as we learn more. Together, COVID-19 vaccination and following CDC’s recommendations for how to protect yourself and others will offer the best protection from getting and spreading COVID-19. Additional information can be found at key things to know about the COVID-19 vaccine. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/keythingstoknow.html.
In anywhere but Clown World, this would be an open and shut win in a wrongful termination lawsuit. Given that the CDC itself says that they don't know how the vaccine impacts spread, there are absolutely no grounds to say that the vaccine does anything to mitigate a threat. Of course, given that we are in Clown World
The fact that he apparently had to talk to congress is a disgrace in and of itself.
He bought some stock, went on a forum and said "I bought X, you should buy X too!" That's it.
Oh, and I'm willing to bet that at least half of the House Committee on Financial Services has some level of backroom deals going on that would get any of us imprisoned for years if not decades if we tried it.
or can't due to window direction
Window direction is irrelevant. UV-B (which triggers production of Vitamin D) gets blocked by almost all glass. I guess windows will help if you leave them open, but if you're just sitting next to an open window all day I'd say why not just sit outside?
But, yeah, make sure you get your vitamin D whatever way you can. Supplements, dietary, sun exposure, whatever works for you
It's good, but IMO you left out the best part of what he said.
“Who is the guilty party? Should we start at the beginning where African Americans sold your African American ancestors into slavery? And to a slave trader who eventually sold African American ancestors to slave owners?....I feel it continues to let us know we’re still African American, rather than just American. Reparation or atonement is outside the teaching of Jesus Christ.”
I can appreciate your sentiments there, but all the "official" lines seem to say that you wasted your time. After all (around here at least) even if you get the vaccine you still need to mask, you still need to socially distance, etc, etc. So, the people demanding you get the vaccine are saying the vaccine doesn't actually stop you from spreading it something isn't quite right.
Was it "the machine that goes Bing!"