🔥 Popular | Latest

Cute, Love, and Tumblr: THAT HAS A HEART sruthi9018: endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!! I NEED IT!!

sruthi9018: endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!! ...

Save
Cute, Love, and Tumblr: THAT HAS A HEART endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!!

endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!!

Save
Cute, Love, and Target: THAT HAS A HEART endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!!

endlesshero1122: cute-aesthetics-things: In memory of Tony Stark “I LOVE YOU 3000″ = YOU CAN GET ONE HERE = I WANT IT!!!!

Save
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Save
Pop, Braces, and Library: PROGRAMMING C THE LANGUAGE INDEX 269 pointer initialization 102, 138 102, 198 pointer, nul ptrdiff t type name 103, 147, 206 push function 77 pushback, input 78 putc library function 161, 247 putc macro 176 putchar library function 15. 152, 161, 247 puts library function 164, 247 inter subtraction 103, 138, 198 pointer to function 118, 147, 201 pointer to structure 136 pointer, void 93, 103, 120, 199 pointer vs. array 97, 99-100, 104, 113 pointer-integer conversion 198-199, 205 pointers and subscripts 97, 99, 217 pointers, array of 107 pointers, operations permitted on 103 Polish notation 74 pop function 77 portability 3, 37, 43, 49, 147, 151, 153, 185 position of braces 10 postfix ++and46, 105 pow library function 24, 251 power function 25, 27 #pragma 233 precedence of operators 17, 52, 95, 131-132, qsort function 87, 110, 120 qsort library function 253 qualifier, type 208, 211 quicksort 87, 110 quote character, 19, 37-38, 193 quote character, "8, 20, 38, 194 r carriage return character 38, 193 raise library function 255 rand function 46 rand library function 252 RAND MAX 252 read system call 170 readdir function 184 readlines function 109 realloc library function 252 recursion 86, 139, 141, 182, 202, 269 199 prefix ++ and-46, 106 preprocessor, macro 88, 228-233 preprocessor name,--FILE-254 preprocessor name,LINE. 254 preprocessor names, predefined 233 preprocessor operator, # 90,230 preprocessor operator. ## 90.230 ursive-descent parser 123 To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.

Save
Tattoo, Simple, and Quote: 67 Simple Tattoo Ideas That Will Inspire You Quote 33

67 Simple Tattoo Ideas That Will Inspire You Quote 33

Save
Energy, Head, and Life: Sairam Gudiseva 3nt period Never has a man influenced physics so profoundly as Niels Bohr in the early 1900's Going back to this time period, little was known about atomic structure: Bohr set out to end the obscurity of physics. However.things didn't come easy for Bohr. He had to give up most of his life for physics and research of many hypothesis. But, this is why you and I have even heard of the quantum theory and atomic structures. Bohr came with his quantum theory while studying at Cambridge. Bohr was a skeptic and he never truly believed in Max Planck's old quantum theory. He put forth the idea that. going from one high-energy orbit o a lower one, an electron could, in fact, be trying to emit a quantum of discrete energy. Bohr was criticized for this idea, but he didn't let up. Soon after, Bohr said his famed quote," If quantum mechanics hasn't shocked you you haven't understood it yet. This quote is extremely famous and has gone down as the motto for quantum physicist around the world. Understandably, Bohr never won a Nobel prize outside of physics (of which he only won one). Bohr's stil going strong with his theories on atomic structure; he allowed for 100's of scientists to fully experiment with the cell and its many components Bohr was largely on the run from the Nazi's when he came up with this discovery, which is amazing because around this time, Bohr's home country of Denmark was invaded by the Nazi's. Bohr and Ernest Rutherford are given credit, but it is believed that Rutherford decided to desert Bohr in the middle of their work Rutherford once, quite famously said tha you should never bet against the wonders of science. Niels Bohr's famous career never really kicked off until he was forty years old. Most other major scientists were going all over the world with their ideas by their early twenties However, in order to preserve the legacy of Niels Bohr, he has his own institution, whose goal is to make many more great strides in the field of physics for years. How did Bohr affect you and me? Without Niels Bohrs' more advanced atomic theory, we might as well over how little we know of the atoms and their compounds. Physics would have never been such a force in the todays society. However, to this day, research is still going on to improve and update the atomic theory. Although scientists clearly want to improve on Bohr's theory, many famous physicists come out publicly and openly that Bohr's ideas will never be improved upon, todays society cannot say goodbye to an opportunity to improve our understanding of the sciences. If Bohr never had silenced his critics, we would still be following Planck's theories, and going on incomplete information. Bohr's later life was all occupied when he decided to go back to Denmark and head the Royal Danish Academy. His main goal was to the world of the of the greatness of the Danish Sciences and most likely educate a new crop of scientists for years to come. There is controversy surrounding Bohr's lie during his stint in the Manhattan project. Though he claimed to be anti-violence and a peace-seeker, Bohr engineered on the Manhattan Project. Though he didn't hurt anyone directly, thousands of people died. Neils Bohr opened many doors for you and I in the physics world, he will go down as one of the greatest physicists Wonder what the grade was
Save