agree that NATO will not advance up to the Russian border
It's a bit late for that now: there are already four* NATO members which have a land border with Russia (not counting Poland and Lithuania, which only border Kaliningrad).
*Although I'm not sure that Norway's border is very relevant in practical terms
For the past few years, very few
The definition of artificial didn't "slowly morph" into man-made: that's the original definition. Specifically it's the output of an art-maker (Latin artifex, genitive artificis).
A "literal antivirus monitoring system" should literally monitor antiviruses, shouldn't it? Ok, there's an alternative parse where it should monitor literal antiviruses. Either way, CO2 isn't an antivirus.
Air-gapped cloud? A sovereign cloud for an organisation with 32 member states? They've managed two oxymorons in a one-phrase requirement.
Amtrak doesn't currently use them and there is no reason to think they would need to add it.
It's a political question. In Spain you have to pass through an airport-style security checkpoint to access high-speed trains (although it's a pre-9/11-style checkpoint: no 100ml restrictions on liquids; and I've never seen anyone have to open their luggage). There's no guarantee that US politicians wouldn't expand TSA's remit to high-speed rail, so a discussion of pros vs cons should really treat it as a possible advantage of rail which can't be quantified.
You can see a word-by-word translation of the Greek:
And having made a whip of cords all He drove out from the temple the both sheep and the oxen and of the money changers He poured out the coins and the tables He overthrew. And to those the doves selling He said Take these things from here
I've reinserted the articles which that interlinear translation omits. On a grammatical level it's fairly clear that "both the sheep and the oxen" is expanding the "all" whom he drives out with the whip; and on a higher analytic level the fact that he tells the dove sellers to take their merchandise implies that they weren't driven out with the whip: to interpret that as saying that he used the whip on some merchants but not others according to what they were selling is a harder interpretation to defend than that the whip was used to drive the animals.
belted the shit out of greedy money changers grifting in the temple lobby.
This is a popular interpretation of the text, but a close reading doesn't really support it. It seems rather that he used a whip to drive out the animals but didn't use violence against people.
Sliced? You buy up-market fish sticks. Hoi polloi have to make do with mechanically recovered meat bound with transglutaminase.
Apple Messages isn't social media at all. It competes only with SMS. Same with WhatsApp. I can maybe understand a judge concluding that buying WhatsApp didn't meaningfully stifle competition, because no platform for basic point-to-point communication is ever going to prevent competition by apps that come on your phone (e.g. Messages).
WhatsApp isn't just point-to-point: it has groups, which is how it was able to create its own network effect. And Apple Messages doesn't come on your phone if you have an Android.
What about people with licences from other states? Do they have to stop at a checkpoint on the border and sign their rights away?
Why do people give credit a performer of songs and not the author
Because the Internet is full of lyrics websites which attribute songs to a performer and don't give any information about the lyricist and composer, or even tell you that it was a cover.
Note that not all of the businesses mentioned are about crypto. Wise is an international transfer service which AIUI works by matching people wanting to transfer in opposite directions and so minimising the actual currency exchange, which allows them to charge very low commissions. It's already registered as a bank in Europe. The application in the US is probably linked to its plan to move from the London Stock Exchange to the New York one, because the UK is less happy with founders having a different class of share which gives them disproportionately more voting power than their stake.
No, Communism is getting the workers to own the means of production. Getting the government to own them is more Stalinist.
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.
