Slashdot Mirror

The geniuses at Mozilla decided to hide the http: prefix from the user some time ago, so instead of http://www.cnn.com/ the user sees www.cnn.com

The http: prefix indicates that THERE IS NO ENCRYPTION.

Why hide it from the user and then add a non-standard indicator that there is no encryption?

So many UI designers should be shot...

Indeed, no currency that is backed by a fully in charge government can possibly go wrong!

The problem with your theory is that while governments can indeed force people to do a lot of stuff, they cannot force value on a currency because in the end a currency is only as useful as the people that will accept it.

People all over the world accept bitcoin, so it has a much broader base of support than any state sanctioned currency, and is also immune to the inevitable gaffes all states make.

And created some sort of ill-defined "discord" -- maybe.

Meanwhile, U.S. "journalist" Brian Ross's fake news about Michael Flynn was retweeted over 25,000 times in less than half a day and caused the stock market to tank.

So yes, let's definitely keep the focus where it belongs -- on a handful of posts from Rooshun nobodies. Because that's clearly what's dividing everyone.

However, I've never really had anybody defend that position with actual quotes, taken in context about some topic that's actually material to the governing of the country.

Then you haven't bothered to look. 20 seconds on google would get you endless lists of his lies documented and refuted or explained. Serious news organization are keeping track of them.

I get that he's abrasive and spouts off stuff of questionable sources at times, but I don't see him as the kind that just lies to hear himself speak, or lies for political advantage like some from the other side of the isle have in the past.

Then you are truly a clueless idiot.

"Tapped my wires" tweet which was widely condemned as a lie but was pretty much true looking back on what we know now.

I don't know where you get your information but it was a lie then and it is a lie now. There is no evidence for this claim.

Except that where it's allowed to work, it usually works really well. The only thing pushing back against it are entrenched lefty entities like teachers union bosses and the city/county councils with which they have an ugly little symbiotic relationship at the expense of students and their families.

Except for the religious agenda being promulgated that seems to be all too common. Not to mention the profiteering.

Sorry ScentCone, I get it, your dogma requires you to recite the shibboleth. Same as the testing agenda and your exhortations against Common Core.

Maybe if you tell more absurd lies, you'll get a prize too.

I'm confused. How will people take selfies with the deceased that way?

The electrical fire's intensity damaged two substations serving the airport, including the airport's "redundant system" that should have provided backup power, Reed said.

Am I the only one who finds it strange that two supposedly redundant systems are housed under the same roof, or at least so close together that both of them can be damaged by the same fire? At my last employer, we duplicated stuff that is far less critical over 2 buildings located at a good distance from each other...

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

Right now we as a country don't particularly value investigative reporting, hence news is becoming more about splash than substance. My best guess for a solution is something like this:

1. Taxes pay for local news services in some fashion.

2. Every local news service is assigned at random to fact check and investigate the stories other services create. Give monetary bonuses for pointing out major problems and such.

3. Do the same thing at different levels.

In short we need to invest in accurate reporting. It would certainly be a hell of a lot better investment than this tax cut insanity. Each news service should be independent, other than fact checking each other. There should be some checks and balances in place so bad reporters or managers can be fired. In fact you would need to pay for enough redundancy that it is very difficult for lies to flourish.

One of the first things they could do is open divisions to fact check existing news services and elected officials. Publish everything. Hell source control everything.

Automation and such may eliminate many jobs but this is one we _have_ to get right for if we fail then there is not much hope for society here as a whole. Garbage in. Garbage out. If things like the presidents constant lying/projecting become even more common then I don't know if we can ever recover from that.

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

Right now we as a country don't particularly value investigative reporting, hence news is becoming more about splash than substance. My best guess for a solution is something like this:

1. Taxes pay for local news services in some fashion.

2. Every local news service is assigned at random to fact check and investigate the stories other services create. Give monetary bonuses for pointing out major problems and such.

3. Do the same thing at different levels.

In short we need to invest in accurate reporting. It would certainly be a hell of a lot better investment than this tax cut insanity. Each news service should be independent, other than fact checking each other. There should be some checks and balances in place so bad reporters or managers can be fired. In fact you would need to pay for enough redundancy that it is very difficult for lies to flourish.

One of the first things they could do is open divisions to fact check existing news services and elected officials. Publish everything. Hell source control everything.

Automation and such may eliminate many jobs but this is one we _have_ to get right for if we fail then there is not much hope for society here as a whole. Garbage in. Garbage out. If things like the presidents constant lying/projecting become even more common then I don't know if we can ever recover from that.

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

How about 'home grown" internet sites that actually manufacture fake news?

That would mean the Fox tabloid and the white supremacist web site Breitbart wouldn't get listings. Won't someone think of the children!

Let's take this tripe one by one.

it had nothing to do with his policies

This one is true. Obama told everyone what he wanted to accomplish which then allowed Republicans to state unequivocally their top priority, make him a one-term president. And thus they became the party of No, obstructing everything, even if the people wanted it.

how he enacted those polices

Not sure what you mean by this one. Oh wait. You mean those executive orders and signing statements, don't you? The same ones George Bush and every single president has done since George Washington. Yeah, I can see how that would be an issue. After all, if you do the exact same thing as your predecessor, only you are in the wrong. Not the guy who came after you and does the exact same thing.

his attitude toward the opposition

You mean like reaching out and trying to find common ground? How horrible!

his repeated mishaps (Fast and Furious as example)

You claim multiple mishaps yet cite only one. I'm guessing those 3,000 dead that happened when George Bush ignored months of daily warnings of an impending attack doesn't come close this one issue, right? Nor the financial collapse which was the worst in 80 years. Nor the invasion of Iraq which cost us over 4,000 soldiers and over $4 trillion in costs. How about handing over $700 billion of taxpayer money to Wall Street and banks so they could pay out their bonuses? Forcing phone companies to install illegal wiretaps? Does any of this ring a bell?

his moneyed ties to Wallstreet

You mean unlike the current administration who as as his Treasury chief a person who came from Goldman Sachs, right? Or that he had, until recently, Carl Icahn who is lousy with connections to Wall Street. Here's a list of the Goldman Sachs employees the con artist has in his administration. This is only Goldman Sachs employees. This doesn't include all the other firms people have come from.

This article talks about how the con artist doesn't want to enforce rules against Wall Street and the banks. Instead, he wants them to "self report" whenever they commit a crime. This of course is in no way a sign the con artist has moneyed ties to Wall Street or is doing their bidding. None whatsoever.

his repeated power grabs at various government agencies

Like signing statements above, the same as previous administrations. Were you whining when Bush did this? How about Reagan?

his cozy relationship with MSM

Non sequitor. MSM is a nonsense name, a fake name if you will, made up by those trying to claim the high ground because they have nothing to offer. If you think Breitbart and the Fox tabloid are somehow better news sources than the New York Times, BBC or CNN, it's quite clear facts don't enter into your daily life.

his continuation of Bush policy

Isn't this a good thing? Everyone knows how great things were under Bush what with the financial markets collapsing, the worst recession in 80 years, 14 million people losing their jobs, millions losing their homes. This doesn't even take into account the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history which occurred on Bush's watch. Make up your mind. You criticize Obama for doing his own thing, and you criticize him for doing the exact same thing Bush did. You can't have it both ways.

his lackluster foreign policy

This is the only legitimate issue and is a continuation of your first comment. Obama was lackluster when it came

Which is a lot more than you can say for the tactics of the existing taxi companies. The stats are for reduce cases of drunk driving after Uber arrives in a city are fairly significant.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/2...

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

So I see a lot of negativity about this, even though in the past with no NN rules almost nothing happened, and when it did was shut down quickly (like torrent throttling).

You are mistaken. There's a rich history of actual and intended net neutrality violations in the past before the regulations went into effect. Unfortunately the top link returned by a search on this currently offline, but here is some info pasted from this reddit thread:

There's nothing hypothetical about what ISPs will do when net neutrality is eliminated. I'm going to steal a comment previously posted by /u/Skrattybones and repost here:

2005 - Madison River Communications was blocking VOIP services. The FCC put a stop to it.

2005 - Comcast was denying access to p2p services without notifying customers.

2007-2009 - AT&T was having Skype and other VOIPs blocked because they didn't like there was competition for their cellphones. 2011 - MetroPCS tried to block all streaming except youtube. (edit: they actually sued the FCC over this)

2011-2013, AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon were blocking access to Google Wallet because it competed with their bullshit. edit: this one happened literally months after the trio were busted collaborating with Google to block apps from the android marketplace

2012, Verizon was demanding google block tethering apps on android because it let owners avoid their $20 tethering fee. This was despite guaranteeing they wouldn't do that as part of a winning bid on an airwaves auction. (edit: they were fined $1.25million over this)

2012, AT&T - tried to block access to FaceTime unless customers paid more money.

2013, Verizon literally stated that the only thing stopping them from favoring some content providers over other providers were the net neutrality rules in place.

And...

2005, AT&T suggested giving preferential treatment to some web giants in exchange for money, starting the whole thing.

2014, Verizon and Comcast throttled Netflix data and held those customers hostage to a huge bribe from Netflix.

Also, links for everything you just said.

Madison River Communications: https://www.cnet.com/news/telc...

Comcast hates pirates: https://www.lexology.com/libra... (article from '08)

AT&T VOIP hostage: https://www.wired.com/2009/10/...

Google wallet hostage: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/0...

Verizon hates tethering apps: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/...

AT&T claimed blocking facetime wasn't a net neutrality issue: http://money.cnn.com/2012/08/2...

"Verizon lawyer Helgi Walker made the companyâ(TM)s intentions all too clear, saying the company wants to prioritize those websites and services that are willing to shell out for better access.": https://www.savetheinternet.co...

Also, the thing to realize is that violations of net neutrality are not likely to be reflected on a general speed test, or necessarily in the fees the ISPs charge. It's much more likely that they will violate it by charging the content providers, like they have already done with Netflix. It will be insidious, and most people will not notice unless they are watching very closely. The effects will like

Yup. He Tomahawked an airbase in Syria after a chemical attack, something Obama didn't do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And he shot down a Syrian jet.

https://edition.cnn.com/2017/0...

Both of those are significant because Russian personnel were at the airbase. Russian pilots also fly Syrian aircraft.

If you look at the CNN coverage of the jet shootdown they were warning rather excitedly of the risk of a US/Russia war over that, which of course never happened. And at the same time they're obsessed with the idea that Trump is or was colluding with the Russians, with collusion being an ill defined term. See for example the Wikileaks collusion story. Which had one major flaw - the email with the Wikileaks codes came from a supporter after Wikileaks had gone public. CNN ran with the story because they were too lazy to check the dates.

https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Then again they were accusing him of being a Neo Nazi at the same time as saying moving the US Embassy to Israel - something Bush and Obama said they'd do when campaigning but didn't do in office - would provoke violence from the Palestinians. I.e. Trump was being too pro Israel.

I.e. CNN don't make no sense. Either Trump is a Putin stooge, or he's trying to provoke a war with Russia. Either he's a Neo Nazi or he's too pro Israel.

Funny thing is Trump's media management isn't all that good. He hasn't got much done legislatively. It should be easy to attack him. CNN lack the attention to detail to attack him without making themselves look like idiots to the point where now if they did find some sort of smoking gun who'd even pay attention? They've cried wolf too many times to be credible.

People often point out that Fox viewers are old, but CNN's aren't that much younger. 68 vs 60

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Given people tend to become more conservative as they get older, it's not that surprising Fox has a higher average age.

Neither Fox nor CNN have any programs I'd personally watch. Both of them are straight up propaganda for the RNC and DNC respectively.

But that was the case LONG before the wage stagnation started. Ever heard of the assembly line? Interstate highways? The telephone? Technological advances, if anything, have slowed during the stagnation period.

I never said those had no effect on productivity growth, just that an improved workforce was also a major driver. It is not a major driver today for the productivity improvements of middle and working class people. It is still a driver of productivity growth among highly skilled professions, which is why you see such growth in the upper middle class

I assume you're referring to the top 1%, as those have been the only folks seeing increased relative wages.

No, I am talking about the upper middle class. Definitions of this group vary, but the Urban Institute defines them as households between $100k-$350k of income for a family of three. In the past 35 years the upper middle class has grown from 12.9% of the population to 29.4%. Most people leaving the middle class are moving up to the upper middle class, not down to the working class. These are the workers who have the skills the modern economy needs, and they are the ones seeing the income growth.

Because when something grows to some very large amount of value, if it's not divisible it essentially locks out the possibility of trade to all but a handful of people.

And there were both higher and lower value tulips.

Not really though since once you have a bulb, you can divide it to create more

1. Tulips are not freaking potatoes. You can't just cut a bulb into pieces and have each bulb grow a new tulip.

2. It was an *annual, seasonal market*. Most people were buying tulips to sell *that year* to consumers. With some of the rarer varieties, particularly those with viral traits that could only be reproduced by the slow process of budding, a purchase may instead be to breed it to eventually bring it to a wider market. However, for the most part, tulips were purchased with the intent of sales.

The fact that it is not a currency tied to any one country has huge value

This in and of itself is fundamentally wrong. Being tied to a country means it has the backing of how much that country is trusted. Having no country and no assets backing it means it has no backing at all.

You ask like Steam being out is a deal-breaker. But anyone can see long term the trend is growth in acceptance.

Yeah, only Steam. And Dell, of course, And Newegg Canada. Oh, and Baidu. And... you know, just go down the list of early announcers of companies that let you pay with bitcoin; you'll find that a large chunk of them don't let you pay with it anymore.

And it always runs the risk of governments cracking down on it

Please tell Venezuelans how "real" currencies have no risk at all from government action.

Yeah, nice try. Your response has no bearing whatsoever to the issue raised, and even if it did, Venezuela didn't "crack down" on its currency, they just made bad financial decisions, causing currency holders to lose faith in the country's backing of its own currency (see the previous comment about backing of currencies).

The fact is that Bitcoin is far more removed from such concerns because a government may be able to crack down on exchanges but cannot actually do anything about Bitcoin itself

Yeah, totally! I mean, all governments could do is make it illegal to own, close all public exchanges, make it radioactive to any investors and investment firms who want to remain in compliance with the law (the vast majority of all capital), prevent businesses from accepting it, and so on. But apart from that, sure, it's got a solid future ahead of it for buying weed and laundering money.

The U.S. in particular will prop up Bitcoin forever because all they really care about is visibility into transactions.

Right. The US is totally indifferent to illegal purchases, secret financial transactions, money laundering, etc, etc. Also don't care a whit that by crashing Bitcoin they could crash North Korea's savings.

So long as the level of problems stays small enough, I expect no action. But whenever it does? Bitcoin, in its current form, dies, and goes back to being fancy digital drug money.

According you China dropping out of support for Bitcoin should have crushed Bitcoin use. Yet obviously it did not. Can you explain why?

It did crash. This was later more than compensated for by growth in the US and EU based on Greater Fool investment.

Now where exactly do you think is would compensate for the loss of the US and EU?

Yes it is, but an even GREATER fool is one that believe any currency is not at even greater risk

Yes, totally. Because when I use a Euro one day, it's worth half as much o

I also see REAL news from CNN

Um...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/08/...

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

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

I don't know how you could describe CNN as "real news".

The Internet was unregulated up to 2015 when the FCC said it would regulate it under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/2...

That's why some worry about how the FCC just ensured net neutrality. To enforce fairness rules, the agency will regulate network owners by scooping them up under Title II of the 1934 Telecommunications Act, a specific set of regulations that apply to phone companies. Telecoms say the rules don't match the services they provide. They don't trust the FCC's promise that it will apply only a tiny fraction of those rules and won't regulate rates and increase taxes.

"Assurances like these don't tend to last very long," warned Republican FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai. "Expect ... regulation to ratchet up as time goes on."

Trump made Pai head of the FCC and he rolled back that decision. Taking things back the way the were before 2015.

Regulation is what gave Comcast its regional monopolies.

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-...

I think the answer is much simpler that people realize. It is our govts fault 100% there isnt competition here in wa state.

Cities and towns are now requiring any and all utilities and services to contract through the cities which creates monopolies. My town for example ...

Brier wa, because of city contracts,

There is no choice for

Cable/internet city has Comcast contract, the city makes money off each subscribers bill. Basic cable with basic internet is 100 dollars a month.

Trash is only waste management, and they charge 100 dollars a month. The city gets a percent of each bill

Hard line telephone only Verizon, and just living in the area means that my cell phone bill has additional charges for utilities even though it utilizes a cell tower, because Verizon own the towers.

The city gets a percentage off total bill including taxes!!!

As you can see, it govt itself thats causing the problems, by first limiting competition, which keeps bills high, AND, because the city gets a bite, this also makes the bills higher because it gets passed to consumer. The real messed up part is that there are city and state taxes already included in the bill, but the city gets a percentage of the total bill including taxes, meaning they are double dipping, so even raising taxes is in the cities interest to inflate bills even more.

Net Neutrality is basically government creating monopolies and then saying 'you need us to protect you from those evil monopolies otherwise they might someday decide to charge you an extra ten bucks a month to access your favourite site'. What the government isn't doing is actually promoting competition by deregulating.

With no statute of limitation either.

This is one thing that is horribly wrong about sexual harassment.

Putting a limit on this would help to remove the stigma and political blowback that often comes with reporting it.

Nope. It would do absolutely nothing to remove the stigma and blowback that comes with reporting it. There's still people who insist that the only legitimate rape is something that somehow prevents pregnancy.

Sorry, but there's a lot of things that are HORRIBLY WRONG about sexual harassment. It's a long list.

It would also get rid of people coming forward with ancient sexual harassment claims that are often viewed as relevant as dragging 90-year old men into courtrooms for World War II war crimes.

Been there, done that.

And we'll do it again until the last Nazi is dead, and even then, they'll still be anathema.

And we'll also declare the falsely accused to be innocent.

Don't like it? Tough.

The NPR article is incorrect. She only looked at the sun without glasses for a few seconds. She found that uncomfortable. A woman nearby had eclipse viewing glasses but wasn't viewing the eclipse because she said she was blind as a bat anyway. So she asked to borrow the glasses.

She then viewed the sun for 15-20 seconds through those glasses, which they suspect is when the damage occurred. The glasses were probably fakes which didn't block all the rays of the sun. So this isn't a story about an idiot staring at the sun without glasses and destroying her vision as the NPR article implies. It's a story about some evil person destroying someone else's vision for life just so they could make a quick buck.

(Though I suppose it's possible she really is an idiot and made the whole thing up to hide her embarrassment.)

Watching the celestial event outside her boyfriend's workplace, she noticed the changes around her, as it looked like dusk during the day. Payne looked up at the sun with her naked eye for a few seconds, but it was too bright.

She approached a woman nearby and asked whether she could borrow her glasses. The woman did not appear interested in viewing the eclipse and said she was "blind as a bat anyway." She told Payne she had borrowed them from a friend and agreed to let Payne use them.

Payne put on the glasses and looked up at the partial eclipse for 15 to 20 seconds. She didn't know what eclipse glasses were supposed to look like, but she remembered that the sun seemed particularly bright -- like looking at it with sunglasses on.

"But it didn't bother me, because I thought it would be a great experience to catch a solar eclipse the proper way," Payne told CNN.

She removed the glasses, returned them to the woman and left.

Six hours later, Payne noticed a weird dark spot in the center of her vision. She told her friends and family, but they told her to wait a day. After all, everyone had been outside looking up at the sun, and it was normal to feel "weird."

The next day, Payne lost vision in the center of her left eye.

So "a few seconds" is six, according to TFS. The borrowed glasses story sounds exactly like something someone would make up to shift blame from themselves, but we'll never know for sure. Besides, she admits she only sought glasses after staring at the sun bare-eyed proved "too bright."

So far, it's a nightmare, and sometimes it makes me very sad when I close my eyes and see it," Payne said. "It's embarrassing. People will assume I was just one of those people who stared blankly at the sun or didn't check the person with the glasses.

She is literally "one of those people," as she stared at the sun. She then borrowed glasses she couldn't verify as safe. I don't know what it means to "check the person with the glasses" but the fact that they were already blind might have been a red flag.

Trump looking at the eclipse with no protection on his eyes.
http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam...

I notice that the US also hasn't done anything about US companies cheating in the same way, only against Europeans.

So yeah. Nobody has a particularly high horse to sit on right now.

Was involved in an alleged murder of a person here in Arkansas awhile back. Apparently, it did not contain nor record anything incriminating as the accused murder was acquitted. Here is one of the articles: https://www.npr.org/sections/a...

*accused murderer* was acquitted...

CORRECTION: The case was dismissed (not acquitted by jury) basically due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor stated via another TV station in our area that the case can be re-opened if the prosecutor finds more evidence. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/...

... the holy family giving them back ...

Frankincense and myrrh are consumables which may have limited their investment value. I can't speak to their resale value but it's difficult to imagine aromatic products (IE. perfumes) being valuable.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/14/...

The various media outlets you listed aren't uniform in their point of view or strategy.
And more than a few stations & print media have contrarians who have a fair bit of clout.
Regrettably I don't have a handy list like the one you've been keeping but the rightwing are not slouches when it comes to flapping their gums & peddling influence.

"It's chicken feed compared to what Soros is spending and just donated: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1... [cnn.com]. And Soros is hardly the only left-wing billionaire. There is also Pierre Omidyar and Tom Steyer, not to mention the Ford Foundation which has been underwriting radical left-wing causes for the last 40 years or so with it's $11 billion endowment"

It's quite clear what the Kochs, Adelson, Trump,etc get from the rightwing agenda - it all works at helping them keep their money and pass along more of it to their heirs. How many billion$ will repeal the Estate Tax save the top 1%?
But what do the leftist billionaries get for their money? How does tightening & enforcing financial regs help Soros?
How does paying MORE taxes help the Steyer et al?
Do they think that'll get their faces on Mount Rushmore? Or on the $50?

>Fox News, even with Ailes gone, is still just a propaganda & apologist arm of the GOP.

So tell me what you think about CNN, MSNBC, ABC News, CBS News, NPR, NBC News, VICE News, WaPo, the NYT, etc?

>And there's no shortage of rightwing media. Conservative talk radio is an empire unto itself and there must be close to TWENTY high status former elected officials that have their own regular radio programs.

That's funny...and a bit hypocritical. Let's look at just a few of the politically connected left in the media:

(CNN) Chris Cuomo...brother to Andrew Cuomo (current left-wing governor of New York)
(ABC News) George Stephanopolous...former Clinton cabinet member
(CNN) Ben Rhodes ...former National Security Advisor to Obama
(ABC News) Ian Cameron - wife of Susan Rice of the "unmasking" fame in the Obama administration
(MSNBC) Chris Matthews - former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter and Chief of Staff for Democratic Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill
(CNN) Donna Brazil - Chair of the Democratic National Committee
(NPR WH correpondant) Ari Shapiro - married to Michael Gottlieb, a lawyer for the Obama legal team
(WaPo) Shailagh Murrah - communications director for Joe Biden as VP
(WSJ) Neil King - married to Shailagh Murrah
(NBC Today Show) Savannah Guthrie - co-host, married to Michael Feldman - chief of staff for Al Gore
(ABC/Univision) Matthew Jaffe - married to Katie Hogan, Obama's former deputy press secretary

Literally, the tip of the iceberg. There's a reason why a lot of the news headlines about Republicans read like they were written by the DNC and pushed out by all of the media outlets by friendly reporters - because they probably were - like White House correspondant Glenn Thrush's coordination with Podesta on a Hillary piece.

>The Koch brothers are ridiculously wealthy and were budgeting close to $900 million dollars in the last election and have been very active politically for decades.
>It's rumored they may spend $400 million in next year's mid-terms.
>Sheldon Adelson spent over $90 million trying to support Romney in 2012 and donated $25 million to Trump's SuperPAC.

It's chicken feed compared to what Soros is spending and just donated: http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/1.... And Soros is hardly the only left-wing billionaire. There is also Pierre Omidyar and Tom Steyer, not to mention the Ford Foundation which has been underwriting radical left-wing causes for the last 40 years or so with it's $11 billion endowment.

Bird cuisinarts. http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DO....

Wrong. Because that 7.5 billion dollars is being EXTRACTED from the US economy. That 7.5 billion dollars used to pay for houses, gas, food, cars, and everything else those drivers needed for their daily life.

You are correct, of course. Replacing those workers would immediately return 7.5 billion to UPS, minus a percentage of people/customers newly unemployed that would no longer be able to afford their services. This is where UBI enters the conversation.

UBI is one answer, but I'm not convinced that it will really work. We've based our cultural values around being productive members of society.

Also correct. As it currently stands, a great deal of America bases a great deal of their personal self-image around their ability to hold a job. I will say this though - cultural values can change, and rapidly if they have to. A brief review of the last 100 years of German history can show that.

Is this the american dream? Nope. But I think we realistically need to be having these conversations well ahead of the time when we lay off 3.5 million truck drivers, ten times that many warehouse workers, half of all office workers, all legal clerks, etc., etc., etc. And those days are not that far away.

Bless you. You are the only other person who is worried about the same thing I'm worried about. This exactly. We are making exactly zero preparations for this. It's inevitable at this point and all of society is simply ignoring it. Don't tell me they don't want to replace 3.5 million truck drivers - they absolutely do. You don't make a R&D project like this one on a whim. I think the economy - just on trucking alone - could tank. Add to that all the other easily automated jobs and it's a disaster. And nobody is even talking about being prepared for it.

I'm not 100% sure UBI would be a fix either. Maybe another solution would be to have everyone retire at 35, and instead of calling it UBI we call it early pension. Or something. I don't know what would actually work either. But it's a problem we're going to have to solve, and soon.

"We have reserve pilots to help cover flying in December, and we are paying pilots who pick up certain open trips 150 percent of their hourly rate â" as much as we are allowed to pay them per the contract," he told the network

Hold on a second, the union contract specifies a maximum bonus to the hourly rate that the company can offer? How in the world could that clause benefit either the workers or the company?

It clearly sucks for the company, because now they've fucked up and should be responsible for paying out however much bonus they need to pay the pilots to entice them to pick up the extra flights.

It clearly sucks for the workers, because they forego the higher bonus that the company might have paid them. Many of them might have been perfectly willing to reschedule what the computer gave them at 200% or 250% pay.

Maximum suck would be if the rigidity of the contract prevented them from offering enough, forcing them to cancel flights. That would cost the airlines far more than offering mea-culpa bonus to the pilots and would completely ruin the travel plans of customers.

Interestingly enough, only 20% of the cost of your flight is salaries. Of that, pilots are probably 5-7% or so (there are many more ground and gate crew per flight than pilots). So even if they had to pay 300% bonuses to get enough pilots to voluntarily do those shifts, that would only be a 10% increase in net costs, bringing their margins for those particular flights from 2.5% to -7.5% (or, making $6 a passenger to losing $10 apiece or so). No matter how you slice it, it's much cheaper for the airline to offer pilot bonuses to compensate for their mistake.

In a post to its website, the union warned its members that because "management unilaterally created their solution in violation of the contract, neither APA nor the contract can guarantee the promised payment of the premium being offered."

First off, management asked pilots to volunteer to do those flights in exchange for money. That seems reasonable enough (except of course for the cap on the percentage). Second, I can't imagine that management would promise a premium and then not pay it. That would be an open-and-shut violation of labor law.

If they really wanted to help, the APA would be organizing the pilots to see how much they would have to be paid to give up the vacation they were promised and then present that to the airline in a package-deal format. Something like "I have 1500 pilots willing to take shifts fro 150% bonus, 2500 for 250% bonus, ..."

I wouldn't hold my hopes up but the ISP might, just might, decide it can pass some of the savings on to you.

This has already been seen in another industry. Specifically, a tax was allowed to expire on airlines and rather than pass the savings onto customers, the base rates for the tickets increased by exactly the amount of the tax, meaning customers continued to pay the same amount. See, airlines realize that the market already is willing to bear that purchase price for the ticket (fees and taxes included) so there is literally no reason a company would pass on money they could collect unless they were not allowed to.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/2...

Why should Comcast spend a whole bunch of money to improve its infrastructure so Netflix can make a whole bunch of money off other companies? Netflix (and its users) should pay extra since it consumes 20% of the entire internet traffic.

Comcast says that with the new Netflix load, Level 3's traffic to Comcast's network would be five times more than the cable company is driving to Level 3's network. So Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay for that traffic increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/3...

Comcast should improve its infrastructure because of competition in the ISP market and we the people are demanding faster and faster data. Do you really want Comcast to harm every video site that isn't giant Netflix or Youtube or Amazon or Hulu?

And what about "packages" of just those sites, but to get the entire Internet a whole lot more money?

Already they force Netflix to give them a cut of what you pay Netflix. This is in addition to what you pay them for ISP service. If they slow them down (and specifically them, not general video) then Comcast's claim for x speed to you is a lie, and they should go to jail for fraud.

Why should Comcast spend a whole bunch of money to improve its infrastructure so Netflix can make a whole bunch of money off other companies? Netflix (and its users) should pay extra since it consumes 20% of the entire internet traffic.

Comcast says that with the new Netflix load, Level 3's traffic to Comcast's network would be five times more than the cable company is driving to Level 3's network. So Comcast demanded that Level 3 pay for that traffic increase.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/3...

I've never been asked for ID on the train itself.

I have. Conductors do not have to ask for it, but may choose to — at their sole discretion. And you must comply or they can call police and kick you off the train at the next stop.

Commuter trains never ask for ID, nor would it really be possible for them to do so due to time constraints.

Just you wait.

And yet, Net Neutrality proponents have already conflated the same thing:

• An Attack on Net Neutrality Is an Attack on Free Speech -- EFF
• Net neutrality is foremost free speech issue of our time -- Al Franken
• Net Neutrality Critical for Truly Free Speech -- ACLU

The problem here is that most citizens don't understand what they are actually arguing for. Who doesn't want the net to be neutral? Neutral should mean that the people who use more of a service pay for more of a service, like toll roads. Heck, look at NYC bridge tolls just to enter the city by car, which in this case is an economic deterrence that is trying to drive social behavioral changes (using public transportation instead). But, when we apply this principal to internet content providers (Twitter, FaceBook, YouTube, etc) somehow they need to have socialized costs instead of paying proportional to the bandwidth they are delivering.

There is a laptop lost in a UK garbage dump with 7,500 BTC on it. Never getting those back...

have pushed average prices for new double-wides up more than 20 percent in five years, putting them out of reach for many of the newly homeless.

Late-stage capitalism is when you can't afford the rope to hang yourself, but your #MAGA hat is subsidized.

...

What a load of "progressive" bullshit.

How's that glorious revolution going in Venezuela, comrade?

You know, where "late stage socialism" turned a country with the largest oil reserves on the planet into a place where you can't get medicine or food?

Mariana Mejias can't afford to buy a bag of rice in Venezuela. She lives in Mariche, an extremely poor neighborhood in the country's capital, Caracas, which suffers from severe food and medical shortages like the rest of the country.

Hoooray! for the FREE STUFFZ!!! of "progressive" economics! Where your starvation is FREE!!!

Unlike your fantasies, there is actual, documented economic failure in Venezuela - where a Google news search for "Venezuela food shortage" returns 47,000 hits, like this:

  'Death spiral': 4,000% inflation in Venezuela

Venezuela just defaulted, moving deeper into crisis

Venezuela media law: 'Threat to freedom of expression'

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself the Communism and socialism work "when done right".

Because they never run out of other people's money, right? Venezuela and Greece and Detroit aren't broke! It's just a capitalist conspiracy! The Communist Soviet Union didn't fail and fall apart because Communism isn't flawed! Right, comrade?

You fucking fool.

have pushed average prices for new double-wides up more than 20 percent in five years, putting them out of reach for many of the newly homeless.

Late-stage capitalism is when you can't afford the rope to hang yourself, but your #MAGA hat is subsidized.

...

What a load of "progressive" bullshit.

How's that glorious revolution going in Venezuela, comrade?

You know, where "late stage socialism" turned a country with the largest oil reserves on the planet into a place where you can't get medicine or food?

Mariana Mejias can't afford to buy a bag of rice in Venezuela. She lives in Mariche, an extremely poor neighborhood in the country's capital, Caracas, which suffers from severe food and medical shortages like the rest of the country.

Hoooray! for the FREE STUFFZ!!! of "progressive" economics! Where your starvation is FREE!!!

Unlike your fantasies, there is actual, documented economic failure in Venezuela - where a Google news search for "Venezuela food shortage" returns 47,000 hits, like this:

  'Death spiral': 4,000% inflation in Venezuela

Venezuela just defaulted, moving deeper into crisis

Venezuela media law: 'Threat to freedom of expression'

But you go ahead and keep telling yourself the Communism and socialism work "when done right".

Because they never run out of other people's money, right? Venezuela and Greece and Detroit aren't broke! It's just a capitalist conspiracy! The Communist Soviet Union didn't fail and fall apart because Communism isn't flawed! Right, comrade?

You fucking fool.

I screwed up that link about the Democrats getting a remarkable 98% of Google's employees donations compared the tech industry average of 53%

http://money.cnn.com/2005/02/1...

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Google Inc. employees took out their wallets and showed overwhelming support for the Democratic Party last year, according to a report Monday in USA Today.

A USA Today campaign finance analysis found that, of the company's overall political contributions, 98 percent went to Democrats, the biggest share among top tech donors.

The online search company's employees gave $207,650 to federal candidates during last year's election campaign, which includes the White House race between Democrat John Kerry and the winning incumbent Republican, President Bush. The contributions were up from just $250 in 2000 when Google was a start-up, according to the paper.

The paper said that 53 percent of the broader tech industry's $25.9 million went to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign finance.

I was unable to find evidence of Nazi's rising.

All hate groups are growing. You clearly didn't even try. This is not merely an American problem, either. Neo-Nazis are actively recruiting and the downtrodden are ever easy targets.

Even in an alternate world awash with Nazis it still wouldn't justify intolerance.

Nazis are not just pro-murder, pro-racism, they actively perpetrate abuse. Acceptance of abuse is not tolerance, it is only abuse. Nazis are actively doing harm not just by promoting genocide, but by actually engaging in violent and antisocial acts. Anyone who suggests that we accept that is, not to put too fine a point on it, a complete and total piece of shit.

5 and 7 are pretty suspect - 7 was a random twitter account which could have been anyone, .

#7 was a statement released by the Russian Defense Ministry.....

United States: In the past, many states had laws that regarded the act of suicide as a felony, but these laws were seldom enforced. In the 1980s, 30 out of 50 United States has no laws opposing suicide or attempting suicide. With that said, all 50 states had laws stating that assisted suicide is a felony. Currently there is no law against the act of committing suicide in the United States.

Additionally, physician assisted suicide is wider spread than just Oregon... they were simply the first. http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/26/...

Only in portions of Nevada is prostitution legal, not the entirety of the state.

Public nudity is more widely accepted (legally) than you've limited it too, but here each city can have it's own ordinances, so listing them would need a staggering amount of space, and as much effort; so here's an already written article:

http://www.thefrisky.com/2016-...

Those are the ones Trump takes advantage of for his businesses:

See, in that case there's a need for US businesses to be able to compete in a global market.

They adjusted down the range of BMI which qualified you as overweight or obese.

I don't mind that they're doing this to encourage people to stay in a healthy range as they collect new data. I just wish there was a way the could do it without redefining what certain words mean.

Did you miss the part where the costs of the recall / remediation were more than $30B or more? http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/2...

Because of the idiotic First Past the Goal Post voting system which degenerates into a 2 party system.

The solution is to use an Alternative Vote system but the majority of Americans are too fucking stupid to:

a) understand the problem, and
b) do anything to fix the problem.

so they end up with the "best" government money can buy!

Not quite. most countries use Instant Runoff Voting that deal with the issues of FPTP. The problem with the US isn't the FPTP system, its electoral councils and PAC's. What the US needs to do is: 1. Kill the electoral collage and go straight to direct voting. The most votes for congressional candidate John Jackson in the electorate of whatever, Ohio means that Jack Johnson wins it. The most votes for senatorial candidate Jack Johnson in Ohio means he wins and if you want to keep voting directly for your president the most votes for Steve Steveman in the federal election means he's president. This is closer to the French system than the Westminster system we have in the UK and commonwealth mainly because we dont vote directly for the PM/Prez. A federal leader who does not win the popular vote should not be win if you're voting direct for a leader, said leaders power should be limited and balanced by the senate and congress.

2. Kill PACs and limit lobbying. This includes capping party donations for both private individuals and organisations. In fact that should be the first thing done because it'll kill a lot of lobbying in itself.

2.a, limit political advertising and force the organisation who paid for it to be clearly stated at the end.

3. Implement instant runoff voting.

As opposed to President Obama's unconstitutional executive order that the Supreme Court decided to let a lower court's restriction stand?

Because of the idiotic First Past the Goal Post voting system which degenerates into a 2 party system.

The solution is to use an Alternative Vote system but the majority of Americans are too fucking stupid to:

a) understand the problem, and
b) do anything to fix the problem.

so they end up with the "best" government money can buy!