Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Ibanez wrote:

89Hen wrote:https://www.espn.com/mens-college-baske ... e-new-deal

Classy move by Bennett.

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Classy move by Bennett.

Plus he's made all that money on his music...so, does he REALLY need more?

AZGrizFan wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Classy move by Bennett.

Plus he's made all that money on his music...so, does he REALLY need more?

UNI88 wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Plus he's made all that money on his music...so, does he REALLY need more?

And don't forget the money he made playing for the Packers and Colts.

Pwns wrote:https://www.wired.com/story/adaptation- ... cant-read/

I've brought up this exact point before...it's one thing to be able to count the number of vowels or instances of one word in a million-word document in a few hundred milliseconds, it's another to be able to read and comprehend sentences.

This is a mathematical puzzle and not engineering one. Better hardware won't get you any closer to solving this problem.

Col Hogan wrote:

Pwns wrote:https://www.wired.com/story/adaptation- ... cant-read/

I've brought up this exact point before...it's one thing to be able to count the number of vowels or instances of one word in a million-word document in a few hundred milliseconds, it's another to be able to read and comprehend sentences.

This is a mathematical puzzle and not engineering one. Better hardware won't get you any closer to solving this problem.

Interesting read...so, am I correct to assume that robots will not be a threat to take over until they can read basic literature????









Wait, some of our politicians can’t read basic literature....

Disregard...

Ivytalk wrote:Things not looking good for Bibi Netanyahu as the ballots are counted. “The Arabs are coming! The Arabs are coming! Vote for me!”

Chizzang wrote:Fox News is doing their UFO's are real thing again...

phpBB [video]

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the president’s handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

The White House declined to comment late Wednesday night. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a lawyer representing the whistleblower declined to comment.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the president’s handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

The White House declined to comment late Wednesday night. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a lawyer representing the whistleblower declined to comment.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

This is going to need its own thread.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

This is going to need its own thread.

HI54UNI wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
This is going to need its own thread.

Why don't you start it then? You were so good with the last one that it's over 200 pages now.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Why don't you start it then? You were so good with the last one that it's over 200 pages now.

You're right. My threads are quite popular.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:
Why don't you start it then? You were so good with the last one that it's over 200 pages now.

You're right. My threads are quite popular.

If the President decided that he wanted to share, or provide, or promise something sensitive, then he has full authority under the law to do that. The public may not love what he promised, but he does have the authority under the law to do that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Trump's defense:

If the President decided that he wanted to share, or provide, or promise something sensitive, then he has full authority under the law to do that. The public may not love what he promised, but he does have the authority under the law to do that.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

The whistleblower complaint that has triggered a tense showdown between the U.S. intelligence community and Congress involves President Trump’s communications with a foreign leader, according to two former U.S. officials familiar with the matter.

Trump’s interaction with the foreign leader included a “promise” that was regarded as so troubling that it prompted an official in the U.S. intelligence community to file a formal whistleblower complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence community, said the former officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

It was not immediately clear which foreign leader Trump was speaking with or what he pledged to deliver, but his direct involvement in the matter has not been previously disclosed. It raises new questions about the president’s handling of sensitive information and may further strain his relationship with U.S. spy agencies. One former official said the communication was a phone call.

The White House declined to comment late Wednesday night. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and a lawyer representing the whistleblower declined to comment.

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson determined that the complaint was credible and troubling enough to be considered a matter of “urgent concern,” a legal threshold that requires notification of congressional oversight committees.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... story.html

CID1990 wrote:

kalm wrote:Another witch hunt?

No, klam

That one was done correctly

What is it with you drawing tortured parallels?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk