|
nsa wizard can i be your apprentice? every good wizard needs one! TIA
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nah, because they always go nuts, steal your wizard cap, and make an army of brooms. like the NSA totally isn't behind the internet of things already. what do you think the point of a roomba is?
|
|
#
¿
May 2, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
CHICKEN SHOES posted:Your post is EVEN MORE CURRENT the historian in me is appalled at what passes for events around here but also maybe....a little turned on?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 04:07
|
|
|
Who needs a working intelligence apparatus anyways? Right guys???
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:Ooooooooooooooops Fucks McMaster gives: 0 Days McMaster has left on the job: T-3
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Terrifying Effigies posted:Meanwhile, authoritarian thugs are loose on the streets of DC: put every one of those fucks in suits on the ground wtf dcpd.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Thwomp posted:Not empty quoting. Does he get to keep his Secret Service detail if he just bails on the Presidency and decides to live in exile in the Vatican?
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
KildarX posted:Alright this is ridiculous at this point am I the only person that's never been to russia or talked to a Russian person related to Putin?!?!? Was Russia very nice to go to at some point in the last few years? am I missing out? i've only interacted with a georgian who drove tanks for the soviets, and then after the cold war -- and some bumming around china i guess? -- came and drove tanks for the US Army.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:One of the congressional reporters is said that the word "treason" is seriously being used regarding Flynn today. Sorry, shim light or heavy? i hear the distinction is important.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 03:21
|
|
|
I'm the completely unprompted "I'm not under investigation."
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
shyduck posted:Jared Kushner deleted all of his tweets. if he had nothing to hide....
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Deathy McDeath posted:This is really loving dumb. All of the "plagiarized" sections are footnoted and attributed, but Clarke apparently didn't put quotes around the statements. Really, we should be mad at NPS for letting that slip. As a (failed) academic I'd not ding him for this. Best practices is always quote everything ever and put citations in, but there are plenty -- PLENTY -- of works out there by real live academics who lightly paraphrase and then just toss a cite on the end of the paragraph and call it a day. If he's lifting verbatim and just dropping a footnote at the end of the paragraph that is worse (and actually in plagiarism territory) but by understanding he is just making an error of attribution in the thesis. All of this said: I have not read his thesis so I cannot speak to what he did, but this right now feels like a non-starter.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
BUG JUG posted:As a (failed) academic I'd not ding him for this. Best practices is always quote everything ever and put citations in, but there are plenty -- PLENTY -- of works out there by real live academics who lightly paraphrase and then just toss a cite on the end of the paragraph and call it a day. If he's lifting verbatim and just dropping a footnote at the end of the paragraph that is worse (and actually in plagiarism territory) but by understanding he is just making an error of attribution in the thesis. All of this said: I have not read his thesis so I cannot speak to what he did, but this right now feels like a non-starter. Just gave the thesis a skim and holy lol is it poorly written. But, on top of that: through the first 23 pages of text (which does not include eighteen pages of prefatory remarks and material) he has 116 citations, and has only -- by my quick skim -- used quotation marks to denote an honest to god quote twice. Once to quote Ben Franklin (no looking guess which quote he uses). He has clearly cited in-text Colin Powell, and "writer" Mark Bowden (no clue who that is). This is super plagiarism and his advisor should be shot out of the academy for letting this poo poo through. Quoting for posterity about how wrong I was about this.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 07:29
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Is it the one about giving up liberty for security? If so then lol Of course it is.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2017 23:22
|
|
|
Death cures fascists
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 06:59
|
|
|
Whelp I totally burned this Israeli source, best keep tossing gas on them for a week. Make a really sweet torch.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Immanentized posted:Can anyone explain the Mongol thing? Is it just banking, or is it happening in other places? Kaplan is tapping into the current en vogue idea of trans-national (or global, or world, depending on who you ask) history. The idea behind trans-national history whether regional or global in scope is essentially this: if we look at human interaction in the past across borders and ethnicities, we can draw parallels to the globalizing effort that seems to be happening in our current world. In other words: modernity and nationalism hosed everything up, and we're only now getting back to the roots of the global exchange that started happening in the 13-15th centuries and which culminated in the Age of Discovery. Here's the problem with all of that: it is (at least the way Kaplan deploys it) entirely ahistorical. He cites Laurence Bergreen's argument that the Mongolians "were, in fact, “early practitioners of globalization,” seeking to connect the whole of habitable Eurasia in a truly multicultural empire." I am not entirely on board with this interpretation of the Mongolian conquest of Eurasia as a whole as I think it really attempts to position the leadership of Mongolia (in this case, the Yuan Dynasty, which by the arrival of Marco Polo in 1271 had already lost large chunks of the original Mongolian Empire to succession crises) in the driver's seat for this globalizing process, which I am confident in saying was not the intention of Genghis Khan or his son Ogedei. Kaplan and Bergreen are essentially laying the post-War mindset of trade above all else to keep the peace on top of the Mongolians and claiming that clearly, CLEARLY they must have been thinking about creating large trade networks to support their empire, when I think it is fairly obvious that the resumption of cross-continental trade can be explained by the security that the Mongolian empire provided for the re-establishment of ancient trade routes. In other words: the 'globalization' of trade in the Medieval period was a function of merchants working from the bottom up, rather than caused by any sort of top down state driven policy.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 06:02
|
|
|
facialimpediment posted:LIKE loving HELL YEAH LONG LIVE THE A-10 WARTHOG More BRRRRRRRRRT for the BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT God.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 13:16 |
|
|
everyone is smiling but nobody likes each other: the US Senate (amy and al are apparently on pretty good terms tbh).
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2017 15:33
|
|