Slashdot Mirror

Lawyers are safe too. They Indian lawyers cannot represent you in US court.

No Need for Meatbags.

Citations: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/08... https://qz.com/738620/birkenst...

Seems like we are on a path toward no anonymity financial transactions. Cash is slowly being squeezed with some of the 1% of the 1% talking of phasing it out. Lots of talk of getting rid of big bills because of the possibility of negative interest rates, crime (which is real, the world money supply of $100 bills has gone up massively over the last 20 years and its nearly all off-shore and is sourced through banks along the internal edges of the U.S. border). I would argue keeping our ability to have private transaction - however the world seems racing towards a place where anonymity is exterminated. Nice article regarding the trouble you can get into when withdrawing large amounts of cash in the U.S.:

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/05/29...

File this under, "no shit, Sherlock". I mean, has anyone gotten a load of the White House staff lately? We had a registered agent of a foreign government receiving national security briefings and holding the post of National Security Advisor before he was thrown to the wolves for being too obvious.

The president just signed a license deal to use his name on a string of Chinese brothels. I mean, what the fuck? I miss the days when the worst thing a president did was get a blowjob from a 20 year old and lie about it.

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/07...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

Here, do some research next time:

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/trump-reportedly-still-uses-unsecured-android-phone.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/president-trump-white-house.html?referer=&_r=0

Nope, not tired of winning

> You mean like how Jeff Sessions lied in front of Congress, about meeting the Russians?

He did *NOT* lie. He was asked if he *CO-ORDINATED THE 2016 ELECTION CAMPAIGN STRATEGY* with the Russian ambassador. He said "No". However, *IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT BUSINESS* he did meet with the Russian ambassador in 2016, as did other congresscritters.

While we're at, Democrat Nancy Pelosi, minority house leader, met with the Russian ambassador http://www.politico.com/story/...
  Should she be investigated.

And Democrat Chuck Schumer, senate minority leader, met with Putin himself http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/03... Should he be investigated?

Typical lib-left do-as-I-say-no-as-I-do crap.

Android market share getting oh so close to 90%. Apple sheep wandering off or too broke to buy Apple's overpriced form before function.

This is the Lump of Labor Fallacy. There is not a fixed number of jobs in the economy, and eliminating a particular job does not mean "one less job".

I think you mean that it doesn't necessarily mean one less job. There is a possibility it means that. For example, the business could pocket the extra profit and hoard it rather than reinvest.

Either way, someone will have more money in their pocket, and will spend that money on other goods, services or investments, generating jobs elsewhere in the economy.

As stated above: there is no requirement that the money saved gets spent anywhere. The business could pocket the profit and do nothing with it.

This is actually a growing concern of late, as we have seen a number of top businesses start to hoard cash - the best example of which would be Apple, which is sitting on over $200 Billion.

Dead end make-work jobs are not "good for the economy", and the point of work is to create goods and services, not to "keep people busy".

It's certainly the ideal that everyone works to create more wealth overall. We can hope that automation starts to open up new markets like technological advances of the past did, but we should prepare for the possibility that it won't.

If the worst happens, and we end up with a growing group of poor, hungry individuals, then make work projects could be better than inviting future civil unrest. That's somewhat of a moot point, though, as there is plenty of neglected infrastructure that we as a country could start training and paying people to repair.

TL;DR: Go fuck yourself.

Classy. Thanks. Can't argue with reasoning like that.

Since Apple is one of the most widely held stocks in 401(k) portfolios, ) , where does this voting you're talking about take place exactly?

Today, 28th of February, 9:00 AM PST, at 1 Infinite Loop in Cupertino, Town Hall (Building 4). The meeting, which is open to all shareholders of record on a first-come basis. Why do you ask?

TL;DR: Go fuck yourself.

Classy. Thanks. Can't argue with reasoning like that.

Since Apple is one of the most widely held stocks in 401(k) portfolios, ) , where does this voting you're talking about take place exactly?

You vote for a proxy to vote for a proxy that votes for a proxy from a list of Mr. Member of the Board's College drinking buddies and are all also members of other boards.

Call it scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, or call it a reach around. Whatever the case, the 99% get fucked.

I'd be interested to hear what any of the actual Apple share holders have to say about the value added by the likes of Albert Gore.

TL;DR I don't have to, Members of the Board "beat me to it" so to speak.

Ah, the "seriously, not literally" defense. In despair I tried to rationalize Trump using this argument as presented pretty well by Peter Thiel shortly before the election. I thought wow, maybe they're right, and maybe Trump really can buck the establishment and do some great things!

What a fucking farce. He's worse than I had originally feared. He is a brainless troll that has packed his cabinet with billionaires and is executing (ineptly, at least) the establishment GOP plan to a tee. Oh, and on top of it attempting to literally implement his bizarre campaign promises, e.g. the idiotic wall.

Completely disregarding the Russian conspiracy circlejerk - I absolutely believe the man is not of sound mind and therefore unfit for any public office, let alone the presidency. There is no other adequate explanation.

Yeah sure they are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20...

>>You lose asshole.
Compared to you? Nope. with a dick attitude like that, you lose at your whole life.

This guy has come out in favor of it, too.

Again. That's the difference between journalism and fake news, journalists do make mistakes, but, when it's done right, they correct them. Fake news, on the otehr hand, doesn't even pretend to try to get facts right; fake news simply lies right from the start.

I'm not sure what your anecdotes is intended to demonstrates. If you have to go back to 1932 to cite an example of uncorrected news reported from a major newspaper, I'd say that proves my point.

Here's one now - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/us/politics/leaks-donald-trump.html

Interesting link to an article pointing out that until the leaks were about him, Donald Trump loved leaks. Not fake news, since the facts seem to be correct. At best you could say it's a case with some editorializing in the body of the article. But fake news is making up facts, not expressing opinions about facts.

Here are a few other sources that appear to say the same thing:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballo...
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/15...
https://www.theguardian.com/co...
http://thehill.com/policy/nati...

Living wage, no such thing.

What? A living wage is an easily definable concept: a wage at which people workign full time with said wage can maintain a normal standard of living, that is, afford housing, food, electricity, and so on. :

People can bitch about Wal-Mart all they want but they have shown to be willing to work with people like my kid. I don't agree with all the crap they pull but I won't fault them for taking care of their employees.

The plural of anecdote is not evidence. I'm glad your son has gotten employed, but keep in mind that wallmart's abuses towards their workforce are such that they even have their own wiki article'

In 2008, Walmart agreed to pay at least $352 million to settle lawsuits claiming that it forced employees to work off the clock. "Several lawyers described it as the largest settlement ever for lawsuits over wage violations."[ - - Because Walmart employs part-time and relatively low paid workers, some workers may partially qualify for state welfare programs.[52] This has led critics to claim that Walmart increases the burden on taxpayer-funded services.[53][54] A 2002 survey by the state of Georgia's subsidized healthcare system, PeachCare, found that Walmart was the largest private employer of parents of children enrolled in its program; one quarter of the employees of Georgia Walmarts qualified to enroll their children in the federal subsidized healthcare system Medicaid.[55] A 2004 study at the University of California, Berkeley charges that Walmart's low wages and benefits are insufficient, and although decreasing the burden on the social safety net to some extent, California taxpayers still pay $86 million a year to Walmart employees.

As this article well puts it:

Wal-Mart Stores raised its minimum wage to $9 in 2015 and to $10 in 2016, after years of protests by workers. While important steps in the right direction, these increases are not enough. An employee working 34 hours per week (which Wal-Mart considers full time) at $10 per hour still earns less than $18,000 per year and cannot meet her family's basic needs on Wal-Mart's wages alone, even in states with low costs of living, according to a recent study.

Why does it matter? Wal-Mart is the country's largest private employer, with 1.5 million employees in the United States alone. And it's a hugely profitable one: it generated $482 billion in revenue in fiscal year 2016. The company simply cannot justify its meager pay practices."

Etc. So they're paying a below livable wage and then making their employees use benefits to try and survive. They're essentially subsidizing a large part of their labor costs with tax-money because what they're paying people is not enough to live on in many areas.

I totally disagree that this is 'taking care' of their employees. It's blatant abuse, of both the employees themselves as well as tax-payer money that has to be spent on their employees on account of them not paying a livable wage or offering proper health care.

All kidding aside, this is the company where being drunk on the job and having sex with coworkers on company property became such a problem, they had to send out an official memo telling their employees to stop getting drunk and fucking each other at work. At an HR company!

Sounds like a clever bit of free advertising to me. I imagine job applications rocketed after the 'leak' of that memo.

"So, Mr Jones, what do you feel you could bring to the zenefits table?"

"Well, I'm certainly excited by the drunken-sex-in-a-stairwell opportunities."

All kidding aside, this is the company where being drunk on the job and having sex with coworkers on company property became such a problem, they had to send out an official memo telling their employees to stop getting drunk and fucking each other at work. At an HR company!

Wtf Trump has to do with this?

Let me count the ways... How about we cover the most basic reasons he is relevant? He's president of one of the largest energy producing and energy consuming countries in the world. He has stated point blank that he thinks climate change is a hoax and that he wants to roll back regulations on fossil fuel emissions. He has significant personal investments in the oil and gas companies. Fossil fuel companies have a direct interest in preventing electric vehicles (and renewable energy) from becoming a thing because it hurts them economically.

So we have a president with a clear and obvious conflict of interest due to investments in oil and gas companies who has every reason (philosophic and economic) to oppose further development of electric vehicles and related technologies if they hurt the fossil fuel industry.

I'm sure this has nothing at all to do with the Note 7 exploding

Why would it? Maybe some small number moved to Apple as a result, but if someone had an Android phone is it not a lot more likely they would get another Android phone?

good luck making those numbers again.

Good luck would be making more next year. Making the same numbers is kind of blah.

Funny how Apple seems to have years and years and years of "luck".

"Companies", as in normal-sized critters, do this all the time. When Megacorps do it, it warrants attention.

In this case, straightforward restructuring of debt makes sense... Microsoft isn't growing like it used to, which only reinforces the need to sell bonds (as opposed to increasing shares of growth stock to cover it, or relying on future market income to wipe out the debt in short order.)

I see it as confirmation that Microsoft's growth is sputtering out, and they know it. Not saying they're dying by any stretch, but more along the lines of Microsoft becoming what IBM has been for a decade now... a maintenance-mode growth curve.

You own it, you have to deploy it, keep it secure and keep it up to date.

If your rational were true every cloud service out there would be failing, but instead there's a huge adoption.

Anyway here's an article with alternate facts....

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/26...

I need to add here that there's zero evidence that Microsoft is in any trouble, in fact it's quite the opposite:

Microsoft earnings blow past estimates in every category, beats Street

Looks like MS is doing just great lately. So all this talk about MS circling the drain is completely denying basic reality. I personally don't like it one bit (reading through my comments for the last 15 years would show that), but I'm not going to deny reality like so many people these days do.

The name "autopilot" isn't confusing at all if you think of it as an analogue of the autopilot in a commercial airplane. The airplane autopilot isn't fully autonomic either; for example, it can't take off on its own. Even at the cruising altitude it requires full attention of the pilots: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/26...

Programming costs money, which puts them in the same bind as the Networks: Programming is not cheap.

"Investors brought up concerns over increasing costs. For fiscal 2017, Netflix said its free cash flow deficit will be about $2 billion in 2017, compared to $1.7 billion in 2016, which is because the company wants to own "more content and more content categories," said chief financial officer David Wells." http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/18...

So it won't be long before commercials show up on Netflix or see your subscription cost go up again.

at least going by Verizon's previous shopping spree. They might be "altabad"! (also, I propose we verbify "altaba").

The size of the economy is secondary. Russia can roll over three Baltic countries in 3 days, and NATO - which includes the US - can't do crap to prevent it (search for the RAND study). And let's face it Russia invaded and annexed part of Poland - a NATO ally - and the US and the rest of NATO took it up the ass. The NATO allies have a much larger total economy than Russia. And yet they were powerless.

As for China, watch what's happening in the South China Sea and how it affects the global economy.

As with Russia and the Middle East, the US is too distant from the South China Sea to be able to mount a long-term, or even a very effective large short-term deterrent force in the area. China wants Taiwan, and also wants to control Japan. The only way for either of these countries to have even medium-term security is nukes on the ground and under water, same as Israel has used its' nuclear weapons to keep everyone around it at bay.

Problem is, Russia won't like Japan having nuclear weapons, and China won't like Taiwan having nuclear weapons. So the options are either a large quick conventional strike, a military sea embargo, or a strategic preemptive nuking of one or two sites as a demonstration of "what if." In both cases, the 3rd option is both the cheapest and the most likely to achieve the desired results.

Almost every word of your post is factually incorrect.

The Wii-U did not out-sell the XB1. Not even close. The most recent "units shipped" numbers for the Wii-U are at 13.36 million, as of September 2016. The most recent equivalent number on the XB1 is 19 million, from January 2016 (so the gap has likely widened significantly since then, boosted in particular by the XB1-S release over the summer). Both numbers are "shipped" rather than "sold".

And don't mistake the fact that Nintendo sell hardware at a profit (which they don't always these days anyway and haven't consistently since the first 3DS price-cut) with them being profitable. Nintendo hasn't been consistently profitable since FY2010-11, which was the last year in which it reaped Wii-led mega-profits. Since then, it has flipped between loss and (small) profits, but with the main deciding factor being currency fluctuations. When Nintendo has reported an operating profit over this period, it has generally been on the basis of the 3DS. The Wii-U may not even have recouped its development costs, particularly after its abandonment by third parties led to licensing fees all but drying up and a number of first party titles such as Starfox Zero crashed and burned.

Moreover, the gaming section of Sony has been very profitable indeed since the launch of the PS4 (and, indeed, since the company got its house in gear in the latter part of the PS3 cycle). In fact, while Sony was a bit of a basket case until a couple of years ago, the company has bounced back strongly in recent years, almost entirely on the basis of its gaming division. Remember, whether a console is sold at a profit or a loss is not actually all that relevant - licensing fees are where the real money is. How MS's Xbox division is doing is a bit harder to judge, but they seem to have turned things around a bit over the last 18 months and are likely at least no worse than Nintendo now. As of late last year, Nintendo was posting some pretty awful financial losses.

It would be good if we could start to ditch some of the 2007-era narrative now. Nintendo's position today is a lot weaker than it was then, but we still hear the same old clichés trotted out.

At least they weren't compared with Trump. Things can always be worse.

Yep, they could. We could be stuck with more Obama.

Small-business optimism soars after Trump election

Optimism on Main Street continues to soar in the wake of the election of Donald Trump. The National Federation of Independent Business' read on small-business sentiment for December hit its highest level since 2004, thanks to a sunnier outlook for business conditions.

The NFIB's index increased by 7.4 points in December to 105.8, up from November's 98.4. It's the largest month-over-month index change since it began in 1986.

Would that be actual hope and change?

Don't be too butthurt. :-)

In the long gone '60s, Sony's researchers found out how to simulate 3D as we know it nowadays. A comprehensive study on how it worked and any side effects was ordered. The results were disturbingly negative and social responsibility prevailed over profit & greed. The technology was buried and disappeared. 40 years later someone rediscovered the tech or simply came across the old files. It was the same old dangerous shit. But times, they are a'changing, and the old responsibility was long gone. Everyone jumped on the 3D bandwagon, public health be damned. But it failed in the marketplace as the old Sony researchers had predicted: it was bad for you and the effect wasn't worth the risk.

I guess if true 3D laser holography doesn't evolve to an accesible level, in 20-30 years we'll see this shit rise again like an immortal coackroach. A few links for your enlightment:

http://www.audioholics.com/edi...
http://www.strabismus.org/all_...
http://www.techrepublic.com/bl...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/08...
http://www.livescience.com/496...

According to a number of reports, Yahoo's core business is valued at less than nothing, so I'm hard pressed to imagine how Verizon can prove they're even more worthless than that: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21...

A slow clap for the person who doesn't realize the difference between "selling units at a loss" and "company undergoing a super-rapid scaleup involving building some of the largest buildings on the planet operating at a loss".

His name is Bob Lutz. He either has no understanding of finance, or has an axe to grind. Considering his history of leadership in the big three, either is plausible.

Regarding the counterfeiting allegations:- Amazon's Chinese counterfeit problem is getting worse

Executive orders can only do things within the power of the executive branch. It can't make new laws, it can't ignore laws that are explicit in their intent. Ie, congress already gave the executive the power to create new national monuments, despite the hue and cry when it actually happens. Congress has given various departments the right to create regulations, then whine when the departments actually do so. The courts can override an executive order and have done so in the past, or they can declare it unconstitutional after the issue is moot (ie, Japanese-American interment camps). In some cases the constitution has granted the executive some power (commander in chief, granting of pardons, and the ability to grant recess appointments which will expire, and "take care that laws remain faithfully executed"). Managing the federal government is the responsibility of the executive, so it would seem that the executive has the power to set the minimum wage of federal workers, though that was also criticized as an overreach when Obama did that.

There are a minority of cases where the executive may give orders where congress has acquiesced and has ignored an issue for too long or refuses to vote on an issue either yes or no. That part is controversial of course. I don't think it should be allowed, but I also don't think congress should be allowed to abdicate their own responsibility either. If congress does nothing except sit on their hands then they should not be pointing fingers when the executive takes action.

A variety of interesting sites on the subject. Of interest is here, http://www.cnbc.com/2014/01/28..., where it lists some of the more controversial orders over time.

Wrong, there are indeed real Scrooge McDuck vaults in widespread use. Well, they don't have all the money in a pit with a big diving board over it, because you would kill yourself by diving into it and the money would be inconvenient to retrieve, but from a financial standpoint the concept is exactly the same:

http://www.financialsamurai.co...

http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/22...

Computers/automation/robotics have been replacing workers of all stripes including white collar workers since the ATM was introduced in 1967. Every place I have ever worked has had internal and external software that replaces white collar workers (where you used to need 10 people now you need 2).

The reality is that the economy is limited by a scarcity of labor when government doesn't interfere (the economy is essentially the sum of every worker work multiplied by their efficiency as valued by the economy in dollars). As people are freed from jobs that are highly repetitive, there are always more complex, less repetitive jobs out there because the consumer is always looking for the next big thing to improve their lives/increase their free time/reduce their work load. Entire multi billion dollar industries have been created after the introduction of the ATM and will continue to be created. Competition will always push prices down to equilibrium with demand, and I predict now that when fast food restaurants are completely automated with one or two highly skilled technicians (who can make $45k a year btw) running things, prices will drop to levels near what you would pay to make the food at home, order accuracy will be higher, and food borne illness will be unheard of (48 million people get sick, 128,000 are hospitalized, and 3,000 die every year from food borne illness.) Food handling automation was inevitable, the minimum wage hike is just a catalyst to make it happen a little sooner. When driving is automated, traffic will be much lighter, people will not have to own their own cars to travel anywhere; pollution will go down due to the elimination of bad driving habits, ride sharing and reduced traffic. Traffic fatalities, one of the top causes of death in ages 18-25 (over 40,000 per year in total) will be a thing of the past. There will still be fatalities, but probably reduced by 100x or so in the first 10 years.

https://www.cdc.gov/foodborneb...
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.g...

The biggest mistake we could make as a country is to go the way of the universal basic income. If we get to a point where there are 10x more job seekers than jobs, then we can revisit the issue, but right now there are about 5.5 million job openings in the US and there would probably be 4x that if the government wasn't actively chasing businesses to Asia. Current real unemployment is about 6% so 9.6 million. When US companies bring back $2.1T this year and the health insurance boondogle is fixed (universal annual HSAs, nationwide competition, standardization of policies; identical to what was done by Republicans to life insurance in the 1990s which reduced the costs by 60%), the job market will very likely explode. Economists understand this and that is part of why the DOW is up 1200 points since the election. The Obama economy was of his own making after the first 2 years due to the ACA and excessive regulation, and, like the Carter economy, it will be unleashed with the next administration.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/03...
https://www.bls.gov/news.relea...

the decades-long trend at the heart of Moore's Law

According to this law, our computers are 1024 times more powerful today, than they were 15 years ago. And they are.

But the user-experience still sucks. Web-browsers are still bloated and slow — and need an occasional restart. You still can't talk to computers reliably — Alexa is considered the best, yet it is pathetic. Being able to reliably show something to a computer will take another 15 years, if not more.

Spammers may be able to generate spam faster, but reliably detecting and blocking their crap — without occasionally blocking real e-mails — remains elusive.

The fanciest UIs — be they by open source or commercial projects — would just stupidly hang or otherwise behave erratically every once in a while.

Hardware-makers may be doing their jobs, but the software-engineers aren't doing theirs... Not well enough, anyway.

Here are three Republican senators who are actually calling for even stronger sanctions against Putin and Russia: Including tacit approval from the GOP Senate Majority Leader.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/29...

"However, some congressional Republicans including McCain and Graham have signaled that they could break with Trump if he chooses not to seek tougher sanctions on Russia. GOP Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called the actions "a good initial step" and while he did not outright say he sought tougher sanctions, he appeared to leave the door open for them."

So now, what are we up to, over a dozen GOP senators who have made public statements that Russia hacked an election to get their puppet in office?

Who saves the money? The consumer.

Delusional corporatist is delusional.

I seriously doubt they went into "saving the customer" mode knowing a lot of people were going to die from faulty ignitions.

They kept putting the same parts in vehicles over ten years after knowing it was a problem. You see this DGAF attitude over and over and again, just to save a few bucks per widget for the sake of profits.

do you seriously think that trump campaigning in new york or california would have moved the needle with no electoral college? If you do you are deeply delusional.

You wish. Obama explained it very when when he, very politely, called Hillary an incompetent lazyass:

• "I won Iowa not because the demographics dictated that I would win Iowa, it was because I spent 87 days going to every small town, and fair, and fish fry, and VFW hall. And there were some counties where I might have lost, but maybe I lost by 20 points instead of 50 points," Obama explained. "There're some counties that maybe I won that people didn't expect - because people had a chance to see you and listen to you and get a sense of who you stood for and who you were fighting for."

Trump wouldn't have campaigned in California to win the state, but to reduce his opponent's margin of victory. Same reason Hillary would have spent time in Texas without the EC - completely different race with completely different rules.

The reason he had no chance of winning the major cities is that we see what he is - a conman.

Right, like pretending to be against the TPP after calling it the "gold standard" of trade agreements in 45 speeches, and getting busted for telling donors that he took a "private position" with them and a "public position" with the voters. i.e. lying through his teeth.

Oh, wait. That was Hillary Clinton.

The one and only complaint that you can make at Trump that doesn't apply as much or more to HRC is that she hasn't boasted about wanting to 'grab women by the pussy'. But that's small potatoes next to Hillary helping to kill hundreds of thousands of women around the Middle East, and turning millions more into refugees.

Have you done anything in your life to fix any of the problems you claim exist?

Yes, I have donated money to political campaigns and have been vocal in social media (including when using my real name) about my position in an effort to inform and persuade others. Although evidence for an upper middle class non-business owner like myself would be far different than for a wealthy business owner; for instance a donation from a wealthy man would be indistinguishable from lobbying while my thousand dollar donation would not.

How many execs are motivated by philanthropy instead of profit?

The average ultra high net worth philanthropist donates just over 10% of their net worth over their lifetime. According to Trump's figures that would mean if he was just average, not exceptional, he would be on track to donating $1 billion dollars over his lifetime. And while we don't know how much he has donated over his life, according to research done by the Washington Post he has donated $5.5 million to his own "charity" and $2.3 million elsewhere since the 80's.

Even if Trump doubles his charity over the next perhaps 20 years of his life, he would have donated less than 2% as much as the average ultra-high worth individual. If you rule out his own fraudulent charity, the figure drops far under 1%. It is quite clear Trump has never cared about anyone but himself, including his own kids before they came of age, so it's unclear how anyone could believe otherwise.

Statistical analysis by unbiased machine learning systems, derived via data on social media platforms including Twitter, that Trump would win. The difference between the correct and wrong predictive systems is that one was just left-wing echo chambers regurgitating Hillary propaganda, the other was a genuine unbiased prediction engine. All these departure protests are is more left-wing bullying to manipulate social media into promoting their bull crap.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/28...

Could not agree more. You're talking about the step-after-the-step, though. In the short term people are going to suffer. Greatly. We don't have an Elon Musk style universal income just yet. But eventually we will. We'll have to - there won't be any other options to keep everyone alive. If you buy food with money, and there aren't jobs to give you money, what other choice would we have? And what good would all those factories be in that case? Nobody would be able to buy all those goods.

From a certain point of view, an economy and it's attendant government is simply a method of distributing goods. I'm not saying anything new there. Everyone from Smith to Marx says pretty much the same thing, they just disagree on how to proceed. But there is an underlying given in all their proofs though - scarcity. They all assume scarcity. We only have so much food, how best to distribute it? Communism? Capitalism? Something in-between?

All of those arguments though are outdated. Automation is about to eliminate scarcity. The old arguments will go along with it, since a foundational principle of them will suddenly be invalid.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...

In a dramatic demonstration, he and his colleagues use a laptop computer to hack into a car being driven by Stahl. Much to her surprise, they were able to take control of many of the car's functions, including the braking and acceleration.

Yeah that's, like, very credible. (Have you actually bothered to read the full thing?).

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22...

In a controlled test, they turned on the Jeep Cherokee's radio and activated other inessential features before rewriting code embedded in the entertainment system hardware to issue commands through the internal network to steering, brakes and the engine.

Translation: their commands were ignored or didn't even reach the intended systems. If they had actually managed to "disable the brakes", they'd probably mention it in a bit more than a vague subsentence like that.

http://www.infoworld.com/artic...

They also cause the steering wheel to jerk around by making the car think it's in reverse and activating the auto-park feature, and thanks to their hacks, the car's brake pedal ceased to work entirely.

Translation (if honest): at very low speeds, we can actually disable the brake pedal.
Color me impressed. I'm glad that car wouldn't be allowed on EU roads.

In fact, Valasek and Miller ask Greenberg to turn off the car after their speedometer prank, most likely to head off the car deploying its airbag when its speed drops rapidly from 199mph to the actual number, which the car would interpret as a crash.

That's a wild, and wrong, guess. That's not how airbags deploy.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech...

I honestly tried to watch the video but it's unclear which of the few dozens 3rd party javascripts to allow for it to actually play.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Not only does the computer weakness allow hackers to manipulate the locks and turn off the engine, it also enables them to cut the brakes. They can even take over the steering wheel if the car is in reverse

That sounds like the paragraph above re-digested.

https://www.ic3.gov/media/2016...

[disabling the brakes at low speed only] (paraphrased)

Meh.

Well, at least I have learned that American cars may actually have brake-by-wire, fair enough. In the developed world, there are safety requirements, like a redundant physical link between the brake pedal and the actual brakes, that has to work regardless of failure of one of the brake-supporting systems.

Jesus H. Christ...don't be so fucking lazy...it's real...

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ca...
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/22...
http://www.infoworld.com/artic...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/tech...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

There is no evidence Russia had anything to do with the hacking of the e-mails, Wikileaks revealed them but they were most likely an internal leak (William Binney, an NSA whistleblower has posited as much publicly).

Digital attacks on state election boards were done by federal intelligence agencies: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/08...

And if we keep the current pace previous presidents have set us on we will fail as a nation. Obamacare is about to run out of steam with costs rising 20-500% in the next year for pretty much everyone, Social Security has been bankrupted, national debt and budgets are way worse than some 3rd world countries, companies are fleeing, there will be a husk left if nothing gets done.

Though I admit to have partaken of some relish last month, which was due not only to the justifiable joy of my vindicating victory, but also from the harder to justify glee over your spectacular loss, it is becoming kinda tedious... Please, apply the necessary ointments to wherever it still feels sore and stop making yourself an object of continuing mockery. I'm not especially proud of the parts of my personality, that still savors ridiculing your kind...

See - it's not that you criticize, it's having a good enough reason to criticize.

All criticism of Obama was racist, get it? And, for good measure, racism-themed insults were imagined where there weren't any... Here is one good collection. There is absolutely no doubt, that, had Hillary Clinton won, the same verbiage would've been recycled with the word "racism" replaced by the word "sexism". Her side already blames sexism for the loss — we would've had 8 more years of it being scandalous to criticize the President.

I for one welcome the comeback of the dissent is patriotic notion...

I wonder if the review will include the GA Election system that the DHS did an intrusion test on even after the GA Election office stated the did not require their assistance?

Wrong. Everyone liked Trump, they just weren't allowed to admit it because the media would turn people against them.

That's not what the exit polls said.

A majority of voters did not like Clinton.
A majority of voters did not like Trump. (Slightly more than Clinton actually.)

That means there were people who did not like X but voted for X anyway. (X = Clinton or Trump.)

If you actually think that everyone liked Trump, then you are delusional.

As for people not being "allowed" to admit liking Trump, well what about all those people at his rallies? What about all those Republicans who supported Trump despite not being "allowed" to do so by the al-powerful and scary media?

Your post is a pile of steaming nonsense.

Unemployment numbers are a bit worse off today than they were when Obama took office, regardless of which measure you look at.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/02...

What are you talking about?

Using your own reference, let's look at the numbers. Obama inauguration was on January 20, 2009. Here are the unemployment rates then and now:

Jan 09: (U1..U6) = 3.1%, 4.8%, 7.8%, 8.3%, 9.1%, 14.2%
Nov 16: (U1..U6) = 1.8%, 2.2%, 4.6%, 5.0%, 5.8%, 9.3%

So every one of the unemployment measures shows a significant decline since the day Obama took office.