We Asked Readers Whether They Put Their Socks On Before Or After Their Pants—and People Apparently Have Very Strong Opinions About The Correct Order - Simplemost |
- We Asked Readers Whether They Put Their Socks On Before Or After Their Pants—and People Apparently Have Very Strong Opinions About The Correct Order - Simplemost
- Forget Mueller: Our pants are still down on election security, and Facebook can't save us - CNBC
- Louisiana debates 'Saggy pants' law after man shoots himself - ABC News
- Gigi Hadid Proves the Athleisure Trend Isn’t Going Anywhere in Sweats & Dr. Martens Boots - Footwear News
| Posted: 29 May 2019 08:56 AM PDT Do you put your sock on before or after you put on your pants? These results surprised us!There are a lot of things that you do on a daily basis that you likely don't give much thought to. For example, every morning you get dressed. As has long been established, we all put our pants on one leg at a time. But before you put on your pants, do you put on your socks — or vice versa? Apparently, this is a question on which people are very divided. We took to Facebook to poll our readers on whether they put their socks or pants on first when getting dressed, and it was a pretty tight race. Fifty-four percent of responders said socks come after pants, while forty-six percent said before is best. More than 2,500 people responded, and people on both sides of the issue were pretty passionate about their stance. Facebook user Samantha Darlene was aghast that anyone would even try to get their socked foot through their pant leg. "Who on this Green earth voluntarily subjects themselves from the infernal annoyance of struggling to get your socked foot through your pantleg???????" she wrote. On the other end of the spectrum, RoseMary Corona Baumann firmly felt that putting socks on first requires less flexibility. "Before. I find it easier to bend to reach my feet," she explained. Still others felt either order was appropriate, depending on the situation. "It depends on the socks and the pants," wrote Sandrea Mo'nique. "If they're long I put them on before, so I won't have to scrunch & wrinkle my pants to put the socks on after. If the pants are dress pants I put them on before to prevent bending down and wrinkling the pants." The weather is a factor, too! Stacie Pitcock said, "Depends on the weather honestly. When it's cold I put them on in the bathroom after drying my feet, during the hotter months I put them on after my pants/shorts." Makes sense!
Since the responses were divided nearly fifty-fifty, chances are that whichever side you're on, you're in good company. So where do you stand — socks on before or after pants?  |
| Posted: 29 May 2019 10:58 AM PDT  Special counsel Robert Mueller's press conference Wednesday, which briefly described his team's thinking about how they approached obstruction allegations against the president, buried one largely buried story about the entire affair: Then and now, we as a country still collectively have our pants down on cybersecurity. The political circus surrounding the Russia investigation and social media's response to it are largely distractions. And as Congress embarks once again on dissecting Mueller's words -- and not the core problem of cybersecurity that caused him to speak in the first place -- it's clear we've learned next to nothing. These days, commentators from the tech industry are mostly focused on the role Facebook and other social media companies played as Russian operatives tried to influence the 2016 election. Facebook itself has spent a lot of the last two years talking about the steps it's taking to prevent being used for misinformation in future elections. But during the conference, Mueller only touched briefly on that topic: "...a private Russian entity engaged in a social media operation where Russian citizens posed as Americans in order to influence an election." That's it. I'm not a Facebook apologist. But we shouldn't be leaning on social media companies to protect our elections. We should be relying on the federal government. The Mueller probe has not improved how we think about cybersecurity. All it's done is move the needle on what individuals think went "wrong" with the 2016 election, based on their political leanings. Here is what really went wrong. In Russia, a secret intelligence unit spent years — well before Trump's rise — prepping for a campaign of chaos-driven social engineering that was most likely meant to throw a wrench into American discourse and sow division. At DNC headquarters, weak passwords and bad security hygiene made it easy for operatives to steal information and inject it into this chaos cycle. Poorly trained staff in Trump's inner and outer circles also made it easy for this same Russian department to trick them into associating with fake accounts on social media, including highly inflammatory accounts advocating for the most extreme right-wing positions, according to the report. In the run-up to the election, secretaries of state across the U.S. did not tap into federal awareness efforts on election hacking. In Florida, this led to a breach of voter databases — though not voting machines themselves, a critical distinction. Talking about "collusion" and "interference" misses this critical point: The 2016 election problems were the result of a multi-pronged cyberattack that none of these parties were prepared for. They remain unprepared. The Department of Homeland Security and information-sharing organizations have done a great deal of organizing since 2016. Elections infrastructure, limited to what is owned and operated by the secretaries of state themselves (in other words, excluding political campaigns), is now under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, with an important "critical" designation that was bestowed by outgoing President Obama in January 2017. DHS serves as a sort of dispensary of best practices, and less as a tactical operator, however. DHS's program is voluntary — and volunteering may depend on the politics of each state. The aid DHS provides involves more coordination than fingers-on-keyboards help from hackers or counter-intelligence professionals. Compare that to Russia's well-oiled hacking machine, as described in the Mueller report. In fact, close your eyes and try to picture Vladimir Putin sitting at a meeting of regional representatives from across Russia discussing "best practices." Following the departure of outgoing DHS head Kirstjen Nielsen, who staked much of her tenure on the cybersecurity problem, scattered reports have indicated cyber personnel are being asked to do work at the U.S.-Mexico border instead of elections security. The FBI, charged with investigating accounts of interference has had its own staffing issues, with numerous departures of key personnel since 2016, coinciding with a range of scandals and frustrations at the agency. The FCC and Congress, who have been focusing Facebook and Twitter over their "roles" in hosting the misinformation and disinformation spread by Russian trolls in 2016, have been largely ineffective. The social media companies have provided frequent updates on their progress, but realistically, their effectiveness will be limited by practical considerations of the platform and the fact that there are few well-established guidelines for how to do it right — let alone regulations. Also, Russia or any country interested in misdirection won't do precisely the same thing again. Which is why centralized coordination is so necessary. Near the end of his press conference, Mueller acknowledged this important reality: "I will close by reiterating the central allegation of our indictments—that there were multiple, systematic efforts to interfere in our election. That allegation deserves the attention of every American." Determining the relevance or legality of obstruction is important. But between the gentlemanly Mueller-Barr feud, the inevitable avalanche of Trump tweets that will follow, Congress's debate over whether to attempt impeachment or question Mueller or be tougher on Barr, the severely important questions about our national cybersecurity stance go utterly unexplored and unanswered. And so, yes, it will probably happen again.  |
| Louisiana debates 'Saggy pants' law after man shoots himself - ABC News Posted: 28 May 2019 03:59 PM PDT Officials in a Louisiana city are reconsidering a 2007 ordinance outlawing "saggy pants" after a man's death in a confrontation with police. Anthony Childs, 31, died in February. North Louisiana news outlets say he ran from a police officer who tried to stop him for wearing saggy pants. A coroner's report said he appeared to have died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the chest. He also had three nonlethal wounds from bullets fired from a distance by a police officer. Childs' family members have questioned whether he was a threat to the officer, while the police chief has said proper procedure was followed because Childs was armed and considered a threat. Aside from questions of force and policy, however, Childs' death has renewed debate over the saggy pants ordinance. Critics of such laws have long raised doubts about whether they violate constitutional rights to freedom of expression. In recent weeks in Shreveport, discussion has often centered on the fact that most of those cited for saggy pants have been young black males. The Shreveport City Council on Tuesday held discussions on the possible repeal of the ordinance outlawing pants worn below the waistline with skin or underwear exposed. A vote was expected as early as next month. Support and opposition for repeal crossed racial lines. "We're applying a law that's stacked," said Lee Harville, a defense attorney, who is white. But Michael Williams, an African American minister, wants the ordinance to remain. "This was an opportunity to restore American values," Williams said, later adding, "You don't have to be sagging to get targeted by police. It's because they're black. It has nothing to do with sagging." Council member Levette Fuller, who is pushing for the repeal, said the law is redundant and likely to result in a lawsuit against the city. "We already have laws against indecent exposure on the books," she said.  |
| Posted: 29 May 2019 09:07 AM PDT Gigi Hadid has long been a proponent of athleisure wear, and she's staying loyal to the trend. The 24-year-old was spotted out and about in New York yesterday clad in a comfy-casual look with her go-to shoes. Hadid sported a super soft cream cashmere hoodie by Mandkhai teamed with Burberry monogram-print track pants.  Gigi Hadid out and about in New York on May 28. CREDIT: Shutterstock The pants are from the British heritage labels's debut Monogram collection, designed by its chief creative officer Riccardo Tisci. The supermodel makes her first-ever campaign appearance for the brand with the collection, appearing in ads wearing the same track pants she stepped out in yesterday. The pants are for sale on Farfetch.com at a $760 price point.  Gigi Hadid in Burberry track pants and Dr. Martens boots on May 28. CREDIT: Shutterstock  A closer look at Gigi Hadid's Dr. Martens boots. CREDIT: Shutterstock For footwear, the Reebok ambassador went with Dr. Martens boots — one of her go-to shoe styles for the streets. The star selected the brand's Mono 1460 style, which features a monochrome look with a solid color from the soles to stitching and even lining. The boots are built of Dr. Martens' smooth leather and feature an air-cushioned sole for comfort. They're available to shop on Drmartens.com for $140.  Dr. Martens Mono 1460 boots. CREDIT: Dr. Martens The A-lister pulled together her look with a cross-body bag, dark sunglasses and a Reebok baseball cap. Flip through the gallery to see 18 times celebrities were spotted wearing Dr. boots boots. Below, see a behind-the-scenes look at Bella Hadid's FN cover shoot. Want more? Gigi Hadid Goes Futuristic in Sequins & Pants That Melt Into Her Boots at Met Gala 2019 Gigi Hadid Makes Head-to-Toe Sweats Look Stylish With This Shoe Trend Gigi Hadid Does Peekaboo Bra Trend in Silk Blazer and Pumps at Saks x Off-White Dinner  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from "pants" - Google News. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
0 Yorumlar