Ботов Для Team Fortress Classic

4/29/2015

0 Comments

3.1 Team Fortress Classic; 3.2 E3 1999; 3.3 Invasion; 3.4 Ð ÐµÐ´Ð¸Ð·Ð°Ð¹Ð½ Ð¼Ð¾Ð³ÑƒÑ‚ Ð±Ñ‹Ñ‚ÑŒ Ð¶Ð¸Ð²Ñ‹Ð¼Ð¸ Ð¸Ð³Ñ€Ð¾ÐºÐ°Ð¼Ð¸ Ð»Ð¸Ð±Ð¾ Ð±Ð¾Ñ‚Ð°Ð¼Ð¸; Ð¿ÐµÑ€ÑÐ¾Ð½Ð°Ð¶Ð¸ Ð²Ñ‹Ð±Ð¸Ñ€Ð°ÑŽÑ‚ÑÑ Ð¸Ð· Ð´ÐµÐ²ÑÑ‚Ð¸.

Counter-Strike Deathmatch Classic Front Line Force Gearbox's Opposing Force Holy Wars Team Fortress 1.5. Half-Life deathmatch.

ÐÑ‚Ð° ÑÑ‚Ð°Ñ‚ÑŒÑ Ð¾Ð¿Ð¸ÑÑ‹Ð²Ð°ÐµÑ‚ ÑƒÐ¿Ñ€Ð°Ð²Ð»ÑÐµÐ¼Ñ‹Ñ… ÐºÐ¾Ð¼Ð¿ÑŒÑŽÑ‚ÐµÑ€Ð¾Ð¼ Ð¸Ð³Ñ€Ð¾ÐºÐ¾Ð² Ð² Team Fortress 2. Ð”Ð»Ñ Ð±Ð¾Ñ‚Ð¾Ð² Ð¸Ð· Team Fortress Classic, ÑÐ¼. Ð‘Ð¾Ñ‚Ñ‹ (Classic); Ð´Ð»Ñ.

System Explorer Portable 7.0.0

zobacz zrzuty ekranu

System Explorer Portable w wersji przenośnej to program będący doskonałym zamiennikiem systemowego Menedżera zadań. Oferuje więcej i bardziej szczegółowych informacji na temat uruchomionych w systemie programów, procesów, usług, modułów, dodatków IE, deinstalatorów oprogramowania, sterowników, połączeń i otwartych plików.

Wszelkie informacje są wyświetlane w przejrzysty sposób, dzięki czemu bez problemu błyskawicznie możemy sprawdzić uruchomione procesy, usługi i programy. Dowiemy się jakie programy startują razem z systemem itp. Wszystkimi usługami i procesami możemy bez problemu zarządzać, uruchamiać, zatrzymywać, zmienić sposób włączania.

Za pomocą System Explorer wszystkie podejrzane pliki możemy łatwo skontrolować w serwisach on-line Virus Total lub VirusScan.jotti. Program jest całkowicie spolszczony. Możemy z niego korzystać równolegle z windowsowym Menedżerem Zadań, lub całkowicie go zastąpić.

Producent: Mister Group

Licencja: Freeware (darmowa)
System Operacyjny: Windows XP/Vista/7/8/10

Oceń program:

-/5

Ocena: 4.7 (9 głosów)

Strefa Download programu
System Explorer Portable

System Explorer Portable 7.0.0

Wersja stabilna

2.4 MB | 2015-08-19
Wersja instalacyjna System Explorer

Ilość pobrań: 3140 | W tym miesiącu: 50 | W poprzednim miesiącu: 87

dodaj do ulubionych 0

Powiadamiacz

Program System Explorer Portable dodało do ulubionych: 0 użytkowników
Aby dodać program do ulubionych zaloguj się lub załóż bezpłatne konto.

Udostępnij program System Explorer Portable

Skopiuj poniższy kod HTML i wklej na swoją stronę/bloga

Skopiuj poniższy kod BBCode i wklej na forum dyskusyjnym

Powiadom mnie o nowych wersjach programu.
Powiadom mnie o nowych komentarzach do programu.
Powiadom redakcje o nowszej wersji programu.
Zgłoś błąd.

Powiadamiacz o nowych wersjach programu

Jeżeli chcesz być poinformowany o nowej wersji tego programu, wpisz swój adres email.

Zamknij

Powiadom redakcje o nowszej wersji programu

Chcę powiadomić redakcje o nowej wersji programu

Zamknij

Zgłoś błąd

Aby zgłosić błąd proszę wypełnić formularz:
Zamknij

Powiadamiacz o nowych komentarzach do programu

Jeżeli chcesz być poinformowany o nowych komentarzach do tego programu, wpisz swój adres email.

Zamknij

Komentarze (1)
System Explorer Portable

najlepsze | najnowsze

Dareks67 | 2014.08.22 06:38

Ciekawe narzędzie do analizy procesów, usług i wielu innych aspektów związanych z bezpieczeństwem i wydajnością komputera.

System Explorer Portable 5.9.3

Losowe Top oceniane Top pobierane

1 CPU-Z Portable

2 Multi Commander Portable

3 Odkurzacz Portable

4 Dexpot Portable

5 AppCleaner Portable

6 HWiNFO32 Portable

7 StrokesPlus Portable

8 Visual Subst Portable

9 Argente - StartUp Manager Port...

10 Argente - Uninstall Manager Po...

11 Wise Data Recovery Portable

12 Everything Portable

1 Argus Monitor

2 UVK - Ultra Virus Killer

3 Zotero

4 AIDA64 Extreme Edition

5 Far Manager Portable

6 Far Manager

7 Farbar Recovery Scan Tool

8 Knudge.me

9 KeepTrack

10 Rejestrator rozmów

11 Bulk Crap Uninstaller Portable

12 Bulk Crap Uninstaller

13 Tablacus Explorer

14 BullGuard Internet Security

15 Wireless Manager

16 Drive Autosync

17 AppDetox

18 The Bat! Pro

19 DSpeech

20 Complete Internet Repair

21 KCleaner

22 Everytap

23 Browser Password Decryptor

24 Alternate Pic View

25 Polarr Photo Editor

Folder Colorizer
3018 pobrań

CCleaner
1091 pobrań

Mozilla Firefox
777 pobrań

AIMP
722 pobrań

DAEMON Tools Lite
685 pobrań

Cheat Engine
662 pobrań

uTorrent 2.2.1
646 pobrań

Scratch
622 pobrań

DownloadHelper
485 pobrań

YouTube Downloader
482 pobrań

This code always links to this page url.

No Agenda Episode 910 - "Coin of the Realm"
by Adam Curry

No Agenda

No Agenda Episode 910 - "Coin of the Realm"
Credits
Cover Art
Shownotes
Clips and Stuff

Coin of the Realm

Direct [link] to the mp3 file

ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 910.noagendanotes.com

Sign Up for the newsletter

New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com

The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com

RSS Podcast Feed

Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad

Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone

Torrents of each episode via BitLove

BitTorrentSync Secret: BBE35UBVKPKSUWGDLUZN5DIPFIB3TTQ5I

This page created with the FreedomController

Coin of the Realm

Where The C Stands For

Executive Producers: Dame Anonymous Goddess, Sir Heyidiot, Sir Davd of the Show Me State

Associate Executive Producers: Anonymous Pat from SoCal, Sir Luke Baron of London, Jeff Gubka

Become a member of the 911 Club, support the show here

Knights & Dames: Anonymous -> Dame Anonymous Goddess, David Lane -> Sir Davd of the Show Me State, Andrew Weloth -> Sir Andrew of the Wet Drains

Titles: Sir Ferdinand Becker -> Baron of Roberts Bay, Sarasota Florida

Art By: Nick the Rat

End of Show Mixes: UKPMX - Oh My Bosh - Danny Loos-Secret Agent Paul-Stepford Wives

ShowNotes Archive of links and Assets (clips etc) 910.noagendanotes.com

New: Directory Archive of Shownotes (includes all audio and video assets used) archive.noagendanotes.com

--No Agenda Player--

The No Agenda News Network- noagendanewsnetwork.com

RSS Podcast Feed

Get the No Agenda News App for your iPhone and iPad

Get the NoAgendDroid app for your Android Phone

No Agenda Lite in opus format

NoAgendaTorrents.com has an RSS feed or show torrents

New! BitTorrent Sync the No Agenda Show

This page created with the FreedomController

Art By: Nick the Rat

PR
- Meetup
  - Stephen Woollard has organized a Victoria BC meetup for 3pm Match 11th at the Moon Under Water Brew Pub (eepurl.com/cCHRmH) RSVP to sgwoollard@hotmail.comor email the Shill and I will forward it on.
- Hitlersplaybook.com
  - From the guy that brought you snopesforsnopes.com comes hitlersplaybook.com! It's a redirect right now but I'm thinking about making it into a simple two button HTML page, with an Amazon Affiliates link to buy Mein Kampf saying "Hitler's REAL Playbook" and another button saying "Thoughtful Deconstruction of the Mainstream Media Meme of 'Hitler's Playbook'" linking to noagendashow.com. All proceeds (if there are any!) going to you guys. Would that be alright?
  - Thanks,
  - Jon of Jupiter (quite a ways away from Sir Jon of Jupiter)
- Search is Back!
  - Hi Adam,
  - The app is up and running on a server near San Jose.
  - Once that is done, I will also set up HTTPS
  - I'm interested to see how much traffic it will get. I have started with quite a small server, but I can scale it up if needed.
  - Regards,
  - Chris McClymont

Migrants
- Duitsland wilde in 2015 de grenzen sluiten | Telegraaf.nl
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Sun, 05 Mar 2017 21:18
  - zondag 5 maart 2017, 16:21Duitsland was in 2015 dicht bij de sluiting van de grenzen. De Duitse regering had verregaande plannen voor grensbewaking met Oostenrijk om vluchtelingen te weren. Dat meldt Welt am Sonntag. De krant baseert zich op een journalistiek boek dat binnenkort verschijnt over het vluchtelingenbeleid van bondskanselier Angela Merkel.
  - Op het hoogtepunt van de vluchtelingencrisis besloten Merkel en haar coalitiepartners op 12 september 2015 om duizenden agenten naar de grenzen te sturen. Maar enkele uren voordat het plan in werking trad, zagen de politici er toch van af. Er werden namelijk vraagtekens gezet bij de legaliteit van het plan. Ook werden zorgen geuit over mogelijk onpopulaire beelden van vluchtelingen die aan de grens worden tegengehouden.
  - Die Welt schrijft dat niet een Duitse politicus op het moment van de waarheid de verantwoordelijkheid durfde te nemen, terwijl het politieke besluit al was genomen.
  - Meer artikelen in Buitenland

Chiners
- Chinese troops appear to be operating in Afghanistan, and the Pentagon is OK with it
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Mon, 06 Mar 2017 17:37
  - WASHINGTON '-- There is mounting evidence that Chinese ground troops are operating inside Afghanistan, conducting joint counter-terror patrols with Afghan forces along a 50-mile stretch of their shared border and fueling speculation that Beijing is preparing to play a significantly greater role in the country's security once the U.S. and NATO leave. The full scope of China's involvement remains unclear, and the Pentagon is unwilling to discuss it. ''We know that they are there, that they are present,'' a Pentagon spokesman said. Yet beyond a subtle acknowledgement, U.S. military officials in Washington and in Kabul would not respond to several detailed questions submitted by Military Times.
  - This dynamic stands in stark contrast to the two sides' feisty rhetoric over their ongoing dispute in the South China Sea, and to Washington's vocal condemnation of Russian and Iranian activity in Afghanistan. One explanation may be that this quiet arrangement is mutually beneficial.
  - Both the Chinese and Afghan governments have disputed reports of joint patrols inside Afghanistan. Those first surfaced late last year when India's Wion News published photos claiming to show Chinese military vehicles in a region called Little Pamir, a barren plateau near the border. Reuters, an international news agency, also recently documented the development.
  - The vehicles were identified as a Dongfeng EQ 2050, which is the Chinese equivalent of a U.S. Humvee, and a Norinco VP 11a, which are like the mine-resistant MRAPs developed by the U.S. military last decade. China maintains that while its police forces do conduct joint counter-terrorism operations along the border, based on existing bilateral agreements between the two nations, the People's Liberation Army does not.
  - But then there's this peculiarity: In January, Chinese media circulated a report about Chinese troops allegedly rescuing a U.S. special forces team that had been attacked in Afghanistan. The story is likely bogus propaganda, and U.S. officials in Afghanistan say no U.S. personnel have been part of any operations involving Chinese forces, but it would seem to underscore the two countries' shared interest in combating terrorism there.
  - In this screen grab from India's Wion News, a Chinese Norinco VP 11a mine resistant vehicle patrols in the Afghanistan-China border region. (Screen grab via Wion News)But why is China even interested in Afghanistan? There are two motivators: security and commerce.
  - The first, says Franz-Stefan Gady, a senior fellow at the East-West Institute, centers around China's desire to eradicate a Uyghur militant group known as the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, which has been active throughout the region for many years. Its feud with the Chinese government dates to 1949. The U.S. State Department designated it a terrorist organization in 2002. More recently, Uyghurs fighting with the Islamic State in Iraq have vowed to wreak havoc back home in China.
  - The U.S. military is not expressly targeting China's adversary though its continued presence in Afghanistan does further China's objective by helping to secure the country and deny sanctuary to rogue terror groups. Today, there are about 15,000 U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, down from nearly 130,000 during the war's peak. They're spread across a handful of bases, focused on teaching the Afghans how to fight their enemies independently. A separate U.S-led counter-terror mission is focused on taking out high-profile leaders within al-Qaida and its affiliates.
  - But as coalition forces have pulled back, security has eroded, leaving ripe conditions for militants '-- be it the Taliban, al-Qaida or Uyghurs '-- to move in. The top American commander in Afghanistan, Army Gen. John Nicholson, last month called the 15-year war a stalemate, raising the possibility that the U.S. and its allies could once more expand their footprint. Long term, however, the goal is to extract. "Beijing," Gady said, "has expressed repeated concern over the diminished Western foot print in Afghanistan.''Border security and broader stability are of prime concern to China, said Sung-Yoon Lee, a professor of U.S.-East Asia relations at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. So its ''law enforcement actions inside Afghanistan in cooperation with Pakistan, as the U.S. draws down, serve Beijing's interests quite well.'' The U.S. is dependent on this assistance, he said. "Hence, there's no compelling reason for China not to resort to military force in its unstable western neighbor.''
  - Chinese Gen. Li Zuocheng, left, and U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley review an honor guard at the Bayi Building in Beijing, Tuesday, Aug. 16, 2016. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)It's a unique dilemma for Washington. On the one hand, China's assistance in war-torn Afghanistan is seen as helpful. All the saber rattling in the South China Sea '-- to include China's militarization of several man-made islands '-- is not.
  - So the U.S. appears willing to cooperate where it can, and confront where it must. "A stable Afghanistan is in the interest of both the United States and China," Gady said. "I assume there must be a tacit understanding that China's involvement in Afghanistan is welcome up to a point."
  - China's financial interests revolve around Afghanistan's abundance of natural resources and minerals, and its access to Central Asian markets. Beijing sees Afghanistan as a vital link for its ''One Belt, One Road'' initiative, an economic policy that seeks to connect Eurasia to China."China," Gady said, "has been seen as a 'free rider' '-- gaining economic benefits by exploiting the country's natural resources while not contributing to the political and military solution of the conflict. So it is not surprising that as Western engagement in the country diminishes, China gradually steps in to fill the void to secure its interests."
  - In 2015, after the Taliban reclaimed Kunduz, a strategic city in northern Afghanistan, Beijing agreed to cooperate with Kabul. It pledged $73 million to support Afghanistan fledgling security forces. Afghan border police also are being trained in China, and the Chinese government is providing military hardware, including bullet proof jackets, demining equipment and armored police vehicles.
  - Lee does not view this as a softening stance between Beijing and Washington. There are too many other disagreements, he noted. Beyond the South China Sea, the U.S. wants China to do more to keep North Korea in check and to lay off South Korea, which intends to deploy a self-defense anti-ballistic missile system.
  - And the notion of Chinese forces pushing deeper into Afghanistan, beyond the border region, strikes Gady as unlikely '-- at least in the near term, while the U.S. and its allies are there in significant numbers. "China's security footprint," he said, "will remain small and insignificant in comparison."
  - Shawn Snow is a Military Times staff writer and editor of the Early Bird Brief. On Twitter: @SnowSox184.

Thanks Obama
- Barack Obama's Politically Active Post-Presidency Isn't Normal, or Good - The Daily Beast
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 06:40
  - Just as his limited r(C)sum(C) and celebrity candidacy helped open the door for President Trump's run, his politicking since leaving office may be setting a dangerous precedent.
  - In a break from modern tradition, former President Barack Obama appears to be wading back into political waters.
  - ''It's coming. [President Obama is] coming,'' former Attorney General Eric Holder told a gaggle of reporters last month. ''And he's ready to roll.''
  - We don't know the scope of involvement he has planned. The New York Times, though, reported that Obama's team rushed to preserve intelligence regarding possible contacts between Trump's presidential campaign and Russia. That since leaving office, Obama tapped Holder to chair a new group focused on helping Democrats with redistricting efforts, while his loyal holdovers are leaking secrets about the Trump administration.
  - For all the talk about Trump's atypical behavior, the Obama camp's unfolding machinations feel almost equally unprecedented.
  - ''Jimmy Carter threw himself into philanthropy,'' observes presidential historian David Pietrusza, ''but also took up oil and canvas, as did U.S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, and George W. Bush, who threw himself into folk art. Theodore Roosevelt took after his successors, William Howard Taft and Woodrow Wilson, with hammer and tongs. It is up to Obama whether he paints or smears.''
  - One could argue that Obama's choice is both acceptable and appropriate. He's young, just 55, and you could even say that it's his civic responsibility to do everything within his power to check Trump's authoritarian tendencies.
  - This is the justification'--or possibly a rationalization'--for what Obama appears to be doing. ''[I]f the only way to protect norms is to destroy norms,'' writes The Atlantic's David A. Graham, ''the effect is a feedback doom-loop for norms in general.''
  - The ends justify the means. He has to destroy the village in order to save it.
  - To be sure, Trump, too, has played into that destructive feedback loop throughout his campaign and now his candidacy, as when he tweeted Saturday about Obama supposedly wiretapping him during the campaign, and'--in still another example of Trump reflecting attacks aimed at him back at his enemies'--said of Obama ''This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!''
  - Trump also recently told Fox News he thinks ''President Obama is behind [the disruptive protests happening at Republican town halls] because his people certainly are behind it.'' Is this another outlandish Trump claim?
  - Perhaps, but there also may be some merit. Organizing for Action, a successor to the Obama campaign, is urging progressives to attend Republican town hall meetings.
  - The fact that Obama has decided to remain in Washington, D.C., is both unusual and symbolic. True, a retired Woodrow Wilson also remained in Washington, but he had reasons. He had remarried a Washington widow, possessed no private home to return to and was too sick to do much more than privately fume about a presidency gone wrong.
  - Thank You!
  - You are now subscribed to the Daily Digest and Cheat Sheet. We will not share your email with anyone for any reason
  - Obama, however, will remain politically active; that break with tradition is simply another aspect of his political abnormality. The truth is that Barack Obama bears a lot of responsibility for destroying what had been acceptable standards'--the destruction of which ultimately made possible Donald Trump's ascendancy. While Obama now poses as a defender of decorum, tradition, and protocol, he (in a much subtler way) flouted convention.
  - This is a guy who, in not even a single term as a U.S. senator before running for the highest office in the land, accomplished little but did try to filibuster Sam Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, and supported a ''poison pill'' to kill immigration reform. Who ran as a celebrity, helping pave the way for the sort of hero worship that President Trump's fans now employ.
  - He won office at a time when America felt like it was already coming apart, and given the opportunity to be a true post-partisan leader who could unite the country, chose instead to run a highly partisan and ideological presidency. That began with his choice of the divisive issue of health care reform as his landmark legislation'--Obamacare being Obama's original sin'--using every means necessary to pass it on a party-line vote. And he frequently resorted to unilateral decisions outside the scope of his constitutional authority. Sound familiar?
  - Along the way, he got us used to a lot of things that his team is now accusing Donald Trump of inventing. Think Donald Trump is an undignified reality star? Yeah, remember the time that Obama gave an interview to a YouTube star who drinks cereal out of a bathtub? Cultural degradation doesn't just happen overnight.
  - Do you think President Trump was the first politician to have a casual relationship with the truth? Then answer this: Who said, ''If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor'' and that ISIS is the ''JV team''?
  - Don't get me wrong'--in his outward demeanor and rhetoric, Obama generally acted much more like a traditional politician than does Trump. But while the narrative seems to be that Obama was kind and normal'--and that Republicans were mean and obstructionist'--it takes two to tango. Don't forget that Obama curtly told Republicans ''I won'' when they were first trying to negotiate with him.
  - Yet, his fa§ade masked a partisan motivation that harmed not only the nation and the Constitution but also his own party. Now, he may harm his party yet again because a too-active ex-president possesses its own risks. Theodore Roosevelt's post-presidential political resurrection deterred the rise of any alternative Republican progressives, such as a Robert La Follette, a Hiram Johnson, or a William E. Borah. A still-active, Washington-based Obama may similarly retard the ascent of badly needed new Democratic leadership, much as any sitting president eclipses his own party.
  - By turning his term into a never-ending, eight-year campaign, Obama established a non-traditional presidency which begat an even more non-traditional president as his successor. He will open even more previously-locked doors by continuing his tradition of ignoring tradition.
  - Hastened by those who should know better, the erosion and devolution of discourse is already finding easy footholds in an already-surreal Trump Presidency. The reverberations, sadly, could echo far beyond the four or eight years of the current administration and tinge Presidential politics for a generation or more.

Depression
- Urban Outfitters CEO: "Like Housing, The Retail Bubble Has Now Burst"
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Source:
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:51
  - For months now we've talked about the retail bubble and the effects of its implosion on mall owners across the country (see "America's Desperate Mall Owners Turn To Grocers, Doctors & High Schools To Fill Empty Space" and "Pittsburgh Mall Once Worth $190 Million Sells For $100" for a sample of the carnage).
  - Now, after a spate of retail bankruptcies struck several popular mall outlets including A(C)ropostale, Pacific Sun and American Apparel, Richard Hayne, CEO of Urban Outfitters, is finally willing to admit what most of us have known for some time now, namely that the entire U.S. retail space is in the midst of a massive bubble that is currently bursting in epic fashion (pardon the pun).
  - Speaking on his quarterly earnings call this morning, Hayne told investors that U.S. retailers are finally facing the consequences of a massive bubble in retail square footage per capita, roughly 6x that of Europe and Japan, a bubble which "like housing, has now burst." Richard Hayne on Urban Outfitters earnings call:
  - Retail square feet per capita in the United States is more than six times that of Europe or Japan. And this doesn't count digital commerce. Our industry, not unlike the housing industry, saw too much square footage capacity added in the 1990s and early 2000s. Thousands of new doors opened and rents soared. This created a bubble, and like housing, that bubble has now burst. We are seeing the results: doors shuttering and rents retreating. This trend will continue for the foreseeable future and may even accelerate.
  - Another consequence of overcapacity is discounting and endless promotions as retailers try to drive demand through lower prices. This causes AUR deflation and erodes merchandise margins. Given an uncertain environment, where occupancy costs are de-leveraging and merchandise margins are pressured, how does URBN with our current portfolio of strong omni-channel lifestyle brands adapt, grow and remain solidly profitable? The answer, we plan to do what any good portfolio manager would: invest resources in the most promising opportunities, diversify to lower risk and increase liquidity.
  - Hayne went on to describe his company's highly "unusual" holiday season in which "overall demand in North America at all three brands evaporated for several weeks at the beginning of December."
  - Let me begin with a fourth quarter overview. I would characterize results during this year's fourth quarter, especially the holiday season, as both disappointing and highly unusual. Total company comparable sales were flat for the quarter, but within the quarter two distinct periods appeared. Comps were up nicely in the month of November. All three brands enjoyed a fantastic start to the holiday season by driving double-digit comp sales gains on both Black Friday and Cyber Monday. Things were looking very good.
  - Then came December. Store traffic and overall demand in North America at all three brands evaporated for several weeks at the beginning of December. More normal demand returned only as Christmas and Hanukkah drew near. Demand remained normal immediately after the holidays, but fell back again once the New Year began. I can't recall having ever seen a quarter with such wild and wide fluctuations.
  - Both Urban Outfitters and Express reported weak earnings this morning which pushed shares of both companies sharply lower in early trading. Per Bloomberg:
  - Urban Outfitters posted profit of 55 cents a share in the fourth quarter, short of the 56 cents predicted by analysts. Its gross margin was 33 percent in the period, compared with an estimate of 33.5 percent.
  - Express, meanwhile, said that first-quarter earnings will range from flat to a loss of 4 cents a share. Analysts had predicted a gain of 14 cents for the period. The Columbus, Ohio-based company expects same-store sales to be down by a percentage in the high single digits, compared with an average estimate of a 5.2 percent decline.
  - ''Our store performance continued to be impacted by challenging mall traffic and a promotional retail environment,'' Express CEO David Kornberg said on Wednesday.
- CDC warns parents about children drinking hand sanitizers | The Kansas City Star
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:24
  - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued a new warning to parents and caregivers to be aware of children drinking hand sanitizers '-- sometimes on purpose.
  - The caution comes with a new CDC report released March 3 that found 70,669 cases of children younger than 12 exposed to sanitizer poisoning from 2011 to 2014.
  - About 90 percent of those exposures happened among children younger than 5, and most of them drank hand sanitizers made with alcohol.
  - The report also includes concern about the potential of abuse among older children for whom misuse seemed to correlate with the school year and flu season.
  - ''The majority of intentional exposures to alcohol hand sanitizers occurred in children aged 6-12 years,'' the CDC report said. ''Alcohol hand sanitizer exposures were associated with worse outcomes than were non-alcohol hand sanitizer exposures.''
  - Very few of the cases reported by 55 poison treatment centers across the country to the National Poison Data System involved serious injury. But both alcoholic and non-alcoholic sanitizers can cause adverse effects, the CDC said.
  - ''Hand sanitizers are effective and inexpensive products that can reduce microorganisms on the skin, but ingestion or improper use can be associated with health risks,'' the CDC report states. ''Many hand sanitizers contain up to 60% - 95% ethanol or isopropyl alcohol by volume, and are often combined with scents that might be appealing to young children.
  - ''Recent reports have identified serious consequences, including apnea, acidosis, and coma in young children who swallowed alcohol-based (alcohol) hand sanitizer.''
  - The CDC advises caregivers and health care providers to watch for improper use among children.
  - ''Increased parental or teacher supervision might be needed while using alcohol hand sanitizer products, especially for older children who might be abusing these products during the school year.'' the CDC wrote.
  - Poison control centers warned parents last year that a growing number of children were getting drunk by drinking alcohol-based hand sanitizers - and showing up in emergency rooms.
  - They advised parents to alert to their children carrying large bottles of sanitizer in their backpacks or purses.

STORIES
- Joanna Coles - Wikipedia
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 05:51
  - Joanna Louise Coles (born 20 April 1962) is the first person to hold the position of Content Editor for Hearst Magazines.[1] She previously held the position of editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan, the world's largest women's media brand, from 2012 to September 2016, and was named an editorial director of Hearst in 2014. Coles joined Hearst in 2006 as editor-in-chief of Marie Claire where she co-created and executive produced the docu TV series Running in Heels and appeared as the mentor in Project Runway: All Stars after orchestrating the brand's partnership with the Emmy Award-winning Project Runway.
  - The British-born editor was educated at Prince Henry's Grammar School, Otley and graduated from the University of East Anglia with a BA in English and American literature before starting her career at The Spectator.[2][3] She moved to the U.S. in 1997 as the bureau chief for The Guardian and later joined The Times of London. Over the course of her career, she has been the recipient of numerous awards for her journalism and leadership in the media industry.
  - Coles sits on the board of directors of Snapchat. She is also on the board of Women Entrepreneurs New York City, an initiative to expand female entrepreneurship with a focus on underserved women and communities.
- The Man Who Taught Donald Trump To Pit Gay People Against Immigrants
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 04:37
  - I know, right? Will your friends agree?
  - Share this Link
  - The Man Who Taught Donald Trump To Pit Gay People Against Immigrants
  - https://www.buzzfeed.com/lesterfeder/geert-wild...Geert Wilders spent years arguing that Islam threatened gay rights in the country that gave marri...
- California grants Uber permit to bring back self-driving cars
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Source: Reuters: Technology News
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:55
  - FILE PHOTO: A fleet of Uber's Ford Fusion self driving cars are shown during a demonstration of self-driving automotive technology in Pittsburgh, U.S., September 13, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron Josefczyk/File Photo
  - By Heather Somerville| SAN FRANCISCOSAN FRANCISCO Uber Technologies Inc is working to mend its relationship with regulators as pressure mounts for the company to improve its business practices and temper Chief Executive Travis Kalanick's aggressive leadership style.
  - Uber on Wednesday obtained the necessary permit to put its self-driving cars back on California streets, conceding to the state's rules after a public spat with regulators last year and initially refusing to apply for the $150 permit.
  - The permit allows Uber back into its home state and the chief testing ground for self-driving cars, where 26 other companies - including Alphabet Inc, Tesla Motors and Ford Motor Co - are competing for a piece of the autonomous vehicle market and have obtained state permits.
  - Also on Wednesday, Uber said it was prohibiting the use of its "Greyball" technology to target local regulators, ending a program that had been critical in helping Uber evade authorities in cities where the service has been banned.
  - The ride-hailing company had for years used Greyball, which effectively changes the app view for specific riders. The technology uses data from the Uber app and other methods to identify and circumvent officials who aimed to ticket or apprehend drivers in cities that opposed Uber's operations. Uber confirmed the existence of Greyball last week.
  - Uber is "expressly prohibiting its use to target action by local regulators going forward," Uber's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, said in a blog post on Wednesday.
  - Sullivan said Uber had started a review of the program, and "it will take some time to ensure this prohibition is fully enforced."
  - Uber's efforts to repair its relations with regulators come amid a string of missteps that have sparked consumer backlash and raised investor concern. A former Uber employee last month published a blog post describing a workplace where sexual harassment was common and went unpunished. The blog post prompted an internal investigation.
  - Then, Bloomberg released a video that showed Kalanick berating a Uber driver who had complained about cuts to rates paid to drivers, resulting in Kalanick making a public apology. In addition, at least three high level executives have left Uber in the last couple of weeks.
  - Cities including Philadelphia knew about Uber's efforts to circumvent enforcement authorities, by either manipulating the app to show a user that no cars were available or blocking city officials' credit cards and phone numbers on the app.
  - The company on Wednesday said it was granted a permit to test two self-driving cars on California public roads. Uber had defied state regulations last year, arguing that its cars do not meet California's definition of an autonomous vehicle because they require constant monitoring by a person, so they did not require a permit.
  - California Department of Motor Vehicles spokeswoman Jessica Gonzalez confirmed the permit for Uber to test two self-driving cars on public roads.
  - Uber will not make the autonomous cars immediately available to passengers, according to an Uber spokeswoman, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
  - The company needs time to build up its fleet and go through the various regulatory requirements such as getting the vehicles smog tested and registered, the spokeswoman added.
  - Uber's efforts to rebuild its self-driving program come as the company faces a lawsuit from Alphabet Inc's self-driving car unit, Waymo, which accuses Uber of stealing designs for technology for autonomous cars known as Lidar. Uber has said Waymo's claims are false.
  - (Reporting by Heather Somerville; Editing by G Crosse and Leslie Adler)
  - Next In Technology NewsSnap perks up after initial rush of short sellersSAN FRANCISCO Shares of Snap Inc bounced back on Wednesday following a steep selloff while an initial rush to short sell the stock appeared to be slowing.
  - Google touts new cloud computing clients; analysts skepticalAlphabet Inc's Google is making progress in taking on cloud computing leaders Amazon.com Incand Microsoft Corp, executives said on Wednesday, as the search engine company stakes more of its future on the cloud as a new source of growth.
  - Exclusive - Toshiba's Westinghouse calls in U.S. bankruptcy lawyers: sourcesWestinghouse Electric Co LLC, the U.S. nuclear power plant developer owned by troubled Japanese electronics giant Toshiba Corp, has brought in bankruptcy attorneys from law firm Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, people familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.
- The NY Times Explains Why There Is So Much "Confusion" About Its "Trump Wiretapping" Story
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Source:
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:53
  - In the aftermath of the Trump accusation that Obama wiretapped his phone during the election, an allegation which the flagbearers of the "truthful" (according to their various advertising campaigns) anti-Trump media wave, namely the Washington Post and the New York Times have vehemently denied, an unexpected victim has emerged over the past few days: the New York Times itself.
  - The reason is that while the NYT has repeatedly criticized and denied Trump's allegation, it itself had written an article on January 19 titled, in the print version, "Wiretapped Data Used in Inquiry of Trump Aides', and online "Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates", by reporters Michael Schmidt and Michael Shear, which paradoxically corroborated much, if not all of what Trump himself said, and quotes the usual anonymous source who said that ''wiretapped communications had been provided to the White House'' as part of an investigation into ''the business dealings that some of the president-elect's past and present advisers have had with Russia.''
  - So with various conservative blogs taking the NYT to task over this seeming contradiction, and even the WaPo's own fact-checker seemingly confused...
  - ... today the NYT's public editor, Liz Spayd felt compelled to address its January 19 article which, implicitly, substantiated much of Trump's allegation, and to explain why that's not the case.
  - She starts by saying that "Trump's assertions, however overinflated, nonetheless echo certain aspects of The New York Times's reporting from recent weeks. That, in turn, has allowed his administration to assert that the basis for his claims rests, in part, on reporting by The Times."
  - On the surface, there are similarities. Both The Times and Trump have referred to wiretaps. Both have referenced White House knowledge of the investigations. And both have described efforts by officials from the Obama administration to involve itself in the continuing investigations of Trump and Russia.
  - Maybe Trump is not a completely raving lunatic after all. So where are the differences:
  - For one, as The Times (and others) has made clear, these investigations have been conducted by the F.B.I., intelligence agencies and Congress, not by Obama himself. The Times has also said Obama administration officials sought to spread intelligence about a possible link between Trump and Russia to ensure a trail of evidence for investigators, but it said Obama himself was not involved. And no Times reporter has claimed that any warrants have been issued to spy on Trump or his associates.
  - And there it is again: several months after we thought we would never again hear the old "Obama had no idea what was going on excuse", it strikes yet again, only this time we find it very difficult to believe that Obama, who expanded the distributions of confidential NSA data to multiple offices just weeks before his final day in office, had no clue that Trump was being wiretapped.
  - There's more, and this is where things get delightfully Orwellian, because as Spayd "explains", the confusion is really just a function of readers being confused because, well, it's complicated:
  - Distinguishing between Trump's assertions and The Times's reporting is essential. Yet readers at this juncture may be understandably confused on what is true and not in one of the most important ongoing news stories in the country.
  - More details about this pervasive "confusion" fanned by none other than the NYT itself:
  - Several readers have written in this week saying they're having a hard time squaring The Times's own past reports of wiretapping with the paper's assertions that there is no firm evidence that any warrants for wiretaps have been issued. Readers also expressed confusion with The Times's assertion that it would be illegal for a White House to receive information about such investigations, when its own wiretapping story in January said the Trump White House was given some information from intercepted communications.
  - ''For months now the NY Times and many other mainstream news sources has been running stories based on anonymous leaks saying that a massive investigation was going on into Trump and company's Russian dealings based on wiretaps and intel intercepts,'' wrote John Penley of Asheville, N.C. ''Now Obama officials are saying this all never happened so my question is this: Why have the NY Times and others been saying it has for months now basing their stories on anonymous leaks?''
  - So to eliminate the confusion, here is the NYT's explanation of how the wiretapping of Trump and/or his associates, which eventually made its way to the White House - as per the NYT - didn't really happen.
  - I reached out to editors in the Washington bureau to seek their help in clarifying the difference between Clapper's '-- and The Times's '-- assertions that no warrants had been issued, and the reference to wiretapping in the January story.
  - Elisabeth Bumiller, the bureau chief, said the January story was referring to information picked up from wiretaps and other intelligence collected overseas, a process that requires no warrants.
  - Still confused? Don't worry: the NYT even has a Q&A to help you out of your cognitive dissonance predicament":
  - There's a lot to parse. And doing so, in a way that is clear to readers, is not easy when the subject matter is complicated and the information that reporters receive comes under strict terms of how it can be used. One reporter, Charlie Savage, produced a helpful Q. and A. explaining the law around wiretaps and key terms. But it didn't try to show how Trump's claims line up against The Times's past reporting.
  - Sarcasm aside, what the NYT's long-winded explanation boils down to is that Trump's inner circle was wiretapped, but the difference is whether Obama knew about it or not. And if anyone harbors any gullible thoughts that the president who lied to the public about his knowledge of Hillary's email server - arguably the biggest fiasco of her presidential campaign - but is telling the truth when he says that he has no idea whatsoever that someone, somewhere was in fact wiretapping Trump as the NYT reports, then we wish you all the best as you click away on all the other NYT "Q&A"s to help you in your misery.
- Why ObamaCare Cannot Simply Be Repealed'...
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Source: The Last Refuge
  - Thu, 09 Mar 2017 03:41
  - FACT: ObamaCare was passed, using the original legislative vehicle, at 1:38am on 12/24/09 with 60 votes in the Senate (see below). The House then approved that Senate Bill without changes; and in February 2010 created a secondary bill which created the opportunity for the Senate to modify ObamaCare using ''reconciliation'' for a lower vote threshold of 51 votes.
  - Literally under the cloak of darkness Democrats rammed their holy grail of a socialist construct down the throat of every American. We no longer needed to imagine having usurping representation that did not represent the will of the people '' we saw it.
  - [Understand the full construct by reading HERE] If you do not understand how legislation is created; if you do not understand the difference between the Senate and House; if you do not understand the way ObamaCare was created, you really need to read this first.
  - A clean repeal bill, meaning a law to repeal the entire ObamaCare construct only, would require another 60 vote hurdle in the Senate.
  - Republicans, while in the majority, only control 52 seats. Without 8 Democrats voting to approve a ''repeal bill'', any House (Or Senate) bill that repeals ObamaCare cannot pass the Senate.
  - This is why Mark Levin is a con-man; selling snake oil as outrage to keep a listening audience angry, yet clueless and hopeless. That's what I don't like.
  - A complete repeal of ObamaCare is currently impossible. The House Freedom Caucus can push all the repeal bills they want, but they cannot get a clean repeal bill through the Senate because they cannot get the 60 votes needed. Period.
  - Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare ''repeal bill''. Ever. What they did previously pass was a ''defund bill'' using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules. The current Ryan bill is almost identical to the 2016 defunding bill everyone is mistakenly calling a prior ''repeal bill''.
  - A complete independent repeal bill of ObamaCare is currently impossible.
  - The only bill that can pass the Senate is a bill that can utilize the process of reconciliation, which has a lower vote threshold of 51 votes. A reconciliation bill is a budgetary bill designed around the financial drivers of ObamaCare. This is what HHS Secretary Tom Price, Speaker Ryan and President Trump are attempting to do.
  - A reconciliation bill cannot add substantively to the existing law. It can only modify the financial structures and retain the same 10-year budgetary impact. If you want substantive adds or removals of the law, beyond the financial structure, it is no longer a reconciliation bill.
  - If it is no longer a reconciliation bill, it requires 60 votes. 52 Republicans + 8 democrats. Democrats have already stated they will not support any substantive changes that undermine the key ObamaCare provisions.
  - Accepting the Democrats will not vote to repeal their signature law'... The only way to fully repeal ObamaCare as an independent bill, and overcome the 60 vote threshold, would be to eliminate the filibuster rule (3/5ths vote threshold or 60 votes) in the Senate and drop the vote threshold to 51 votes, a simple majority, for all legislation.
  - However, if the Senate was to drop to a simple majority vote for all legislation the entire premise of the upper chamber minority party protection is gone. Forever.
  - There would no longer be any difference in the House or Senate for vote thresholds, and as a consequence there would no longer be any legislative protections for the minority positions. What this means, in combination with the previous passage of the 17th amendment, is the constitutional republican framework is gone.
  - The constitutional republic being now replaced with a pure majority rule democracy. The founding fathers regarded majority rule democracy less desirable than a monarchy because a simple majority means mob rule. At least in a monarchy you might get a wise king once-in-a-while. In a mob rule democracy emotion drives everything. You go from being a nation of laws, to a nation of laws of the moment based on emotion.
  - Eliminating the 3/5th's vote threshold in the Senate would also mean there's no real reason to keep the Senate around when in the hands of the same party as the House. The House can pass 50% +1 bills all by themselves. The Senate, the place where grand deliberations required the protection and consideration of the minority position, would be unnecessary.
  - All structural protections for the minority views would be dispatched. Forever.
  - Without the filibuster rule, and with the Senate having only a simple majority rule for passage, there would no longer exist an internal legislative check for any minority party to protect themselves from the laws created by a greater mob.
  - The ruling party would be in power as if they held a Senate super majority at all times. As a consequence, with minority protection eliminated, legislation impacting Texas (or any state) is then ruled by the legislative federal dictates from those representing New York and California (or any other aggregate). There is no legislative pressure to listen to, or consider, the position of the minority party.
  - You would think that constitutional conservatives would be necessarily predisposed against the dropping of a constitutional republic in favor of a pure democracy (mob rule).
  - However, within this current argument over the Price/Ryan approach to replacing ObamaCare you find exactly that. Emotional conservatives, and crony-constitutional conservatives like Mark Levin, arguing against the current House bill leaving only the option to drop the Senate filibuster on legislation and pass laws with a simple majority.
  - So you tell me, is this really a constitutional-conservative approach?
  - Really and honestly?
  - Of course there are problems with the current Ryan bill. It can only approach ObamaCare from the reconciliation aspect. It cannot go into the substantive changes, adds or modifications because that would require the 60 vote Senate. Again, See Here.
  - Additionally, despite claims to the contrary, the GOP has never passed an Obamacare ''repeal bill''. Ever. What they did previously pass was a ''defund bill'' using the lower vote reconciliation process. President Obama vetoed it. A defunding bill was possible because of the financial pathway which falls under reconciliation rules.
  - Yes, the GOP could defund it 100% again, but then what?'... It still exists as a program, and Trump would have to fund the existing (non repealed law) from somewhere. So you're back to the 60 votes for a replacement again or eliminate the filibuster and go with the 51-vote threshold for all future legislation.
  - Back to current ObamaCare's replacement '' there are three options if we are going to retain a constitutional republic, and pass laws with the 60 vote senate filibuster threshold:
  - '... Option #1 '' We can do nothing '' and allow ObamaCare to collapse on it's own. In the interim many Americans will be negatively impacted and the more vulnerable and needy will be worst hurt. Premiums and co-pays continue to skyrocket while the insurance system tries to preserve itself.
  - '... Option #2 '' We can Repeal and Replace using the three-phase approach being proposed by Tom Price, Paul Ryan and Donald Trump:
  - 1. Pass reconciliation legislation targeting the financial mechanisms.2. HHS rewrites rules.3. New laws are proposed by a full congress to adjust ObamaCare and add to it, and laws debated/passed.Yes, this has it's risks. No guarantee you'll get the cookie you want in phase three.
  - '... Option #3 '' Pass futile structural repeal bills in the House, and watch them pile up in the Senate without the ability to pass and earn 60 votes. Shout and holler some more, gnash some teeth, and wait for 2018 when Republicans will attempt to win the other 8 seats needed. Again, even less of a guarantee on the outcome.
  - Those are our options.
  - '....Unless you want to eliminate the Constitutional Republic and kill the vote threshold in the Senate. Even nasty Harry Reid didn't do that when he created it.
  - Choose wisely.
  - Advertisements
- WikiLeaks Files Show the CIA Repurposing Hacking Code To Save Time, Not To Frame Russia
  - Link to Article
  - Archived Version
  - Source: The Intercept

Ботов Для Team Fortress Classic - u-ron96 классический высокий