Resultados da busca

Escrito originalmente por Arvaos:

Escrito originalmente por Tonepoet:

I just literally showed they didn't redact his name from the files.

Nice try but it's already news.

>TheFBIredactedDonald Trump's name from several references in the newly releasedJeffrey Epsteinfiles,Bloomberg's Jason Leopold reported Friday.

>Internal directives instructed about 1,000 FBI agents to flag any mention of Trump during a March review of roughly 100,000 pages of records, people familiar with the process told Bloomberg.

>Privacy concerns and protections for victims has been cited as reasons for withholding additional material, a decision that has drawn bipartisan criticism and renewed scrutiny of the files' handling.

Well, I mean I did, but it turns out you're talking about something different. Sorta jumped to conclusions since you seemed to be acting under the assumption that Bondi retracted Trump's names from the files that were published on the department of justice's website on February 27th[web.archive.org]

I'm not trying to pull anything. I hadn't heard of that bloomburg report[www.bloomberg.com] before now.

Giving it a once over though, it seems to already provide the answer. A Freedom of Information Act request was made and the standard processing of such requests involves review from contractors and analysts who determine what information can be released with redactions made in accordance to the law.

Speculatively, when Trump was involved with Epstein, he was a private citizen and as such his name may be subject to statutory exemptions meant to safeguard the privacy of private citizens.

A Freedom of Information Act request was never going to turn up any of the juicy information the public would have wanted because the freedom of information act seems to be designed against it.

It's probably worth noting that Bloomberg claims to be going off of the word of three anonymous F.B.I. agents, and that those F.B.I. agents note that appearance in the Epstein files is not necessarily evidence of wrongdoing.

They're required by law to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request, so that triggers the whole rigmarole of compiling the documents and censoring them like Japanese pornography.

This quotation from a 1991 supreme court ruling is rather choice

Unless there is compelling evidence that the agency denying the FOIA request is engaged in illegal activity, and access to the names of private individuals appearing in the agency's law enforcement files is necessary in order to confirm or refute that evidence, there is no reason to believe that the incremental public interest in such information would ever be significant,

Just how is the public supposed to prove such a thing when the thing they are being denied may be the very evidence necessary to prove such a thing?

All this proves is that the Freedom of Information Act is defective.to the point of being nearly pointless, which I think is something we all knew already, at least in a vague sense.

Escrito originalmente por Lexosuit15:

So this happened to me about 28 hours ago. Preloaded the beta, said turn on secureboot, ok. Did that, Game tried to install javelin, Did that, Said I needed the latest nvidia drivers. Closed game. At that point, I disabled secureboot, because the only reason I turned it on was to play this beta. I didn't have early access so I disabled it. When I saved and exited BIOS, BSOD

my error was xc000000e on windows 11

basically for the next 20 plus hours I tried researching and fixing the problem. Seems like my EFI file was corrupted, I reformatted and created a new one, bootrec /scanos, bcdedit, etc. etc.

about 2 hours ago I was able to restore my PC back to normal.

So yeah, I blame BF6 for that stress induced hiccup, because the only recent change that I did to my less than a year old PC was enable secureboot, then disable it because it wasn't needed at the moment

EA just told you to enable secure boot. The "hiccup" was from Windows. EA hat nothing to do with that

respondendo:

1-sumiu forevis, nao consta na lista de empregados.
2-Nao reduziu os slots

People seem to gloss over the fact that requiring secureboot to boot a game I otherwise can run fine is an issue for some people, my motherboard is unsupported for secureboot, so what am I? I'm not a cheater, I'm being unnecessarily being gate kept from a game I can otherwise run.

🤍 𝑨𝒍𝒍 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒆 𝒐𝒇𝒇𝒆𝒓𝒔 𝒂𝒓𝒆 𝒘𝒆𝒍𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆 🤍

｡ ◦ °𝑰 𝒉𝒂𝒗𝒆 𝒎𝒐𝒓𝒆 𝒕𝒉𝒂𝒏 100 𝒌𝒏𝒊𝒗𝒆𝒔 🤍 ◦ ｡

｡ ◦ °𝑷𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒔𝒆 𝒔𝒆𝒏𝒅 𝒚𝒐𝒖𝒓 𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒅𝒆🤍 ◦ ｡


https://steamcommunity.com/tradeoffer/new/?partner=1066993177&token=yiXPFQlh

Most people won't and this game will fail.

Would I buy it if I knew the game would never have any further updates? Yes I would. Value can only be subjective rather than objective but personally I've enjoyed the 100-odd hours I've had in the game and I continue to enjoy it. The very different experiences of the game you can have depending on choices made during character creation keeps me coming back.

last time I tried dealing with settlers there was one standing next to a mutfruit plant complaining about being hungry all the time so I sent them all to Covenant and wiped them out. Haven't built a recruitment beacon since.

I used to say that modder who made the diaper & pacifier mod was a weirdo but maybe he was ahead of his time because having settlers feels more like running a day care center.

Escrito originalmente por Alex:

If you experience some problems with your pc when turning it on is one thing.
But if you are not able to turn it on because you can't do a few simple steps you should probably get a console.

Few simple steps and reinstalling your whole Windows from scratch because of one game are 2 different things afaik.

Escrito originalmente por Affogato♨:

Escrito originalmente por bajiao-12ye:

Why are you quoting me here?

because i can , because you wrote here , next time don't comment about something you don't know

Of course you can but why? Your reply wasn't relevant to my question so idk why you quoted me...