Slashdot Mirror

Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody. And he wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's like incredible.

There's a really obvious reason why he's so popular, so I don't think "incredible" is the right word to use.

A lot of people are facing complete ruin and are scared, holding their breath hoping that something will change.

Trump is the candidate for "change", and Clinton is the candidate for "stay the course".

I'm not a Clinton supporter, but I don't think that statement about Hillary is particularly controversial even among her supporters. She's definitely a political insider, is funded by moneyed interests, and her website has a list of issues that give a sense of "direction" without promising anything concrete. Typical of politicians for the last 50 years - nothing bad or unusual about that.

Trump has a list of 7 things that he will change, with a concrete list of changes for each. All of his proposed changes are aimed at making peoples' lives better.

People who are secure in their position, who have a job and don't see themselves being laid off or expect to find a new job quickly if they are laid off should vote for Hillary. There are a lot of these people in the country, and "stay the course" is the least risky choice for them to make.

People who are unemployed, struggling, or in fear of losing their situation should vote for Trump, because he's proposing to make changes.

As the theory goes, when you're doing well you should minimise risk - don't do anything that could change your situation. When you're doing poorly, you can tolerate more risk in the hopes that it might help.

So it really all boils down to the proportion of people in the country who are at-risk and scared, versus the proportion who think the current situation is "pretty good".

We're presented with a never-ending stream of depressing news about this here on Slashdot, so it's easy to believe that majority of the country might be shivering in fear hoping for something to change, but that might not be an accurate view.

"Change" or "stay the course"? The voters will probably decide this November.

Comcast profits were 2,137,000 on 18,743,000.

That's 11%.

But that's after having some of the highest salaries in the nation.
http://www.latimes.com/enterta...
Comcast compensation: Michael Cavanagh is highest paid CFO in the nation
Neil Smit, the Comcast Cable chief executive, received $27.9 million, a 20% increase over the previous year.
http://money.cnn.com/galleries...
There CEO is on CNN's list of the 5 most overpaid CEOs in the entire country.
Comcast CEO Brian Roberts received total compensation of $40.8 million last year, Corporate Library said. That includes a $2.7 million base salary and over $22 million in earnings related to stock options.

But wait...
Executive own many shares of comcast stock so comcast's huge stock repurchase plan also fed a lot of money to those guys as did the dividends (tho those are a bit low).

And one of the reasons Comcast costs are so high is that everyone up the food chain from them has also jacked up prices and required bundling of channels that should be illegal (and which people are starting to rout around).

Summary: Comcast are bad dudes.

Sorry, but when George W. Bush was ginning up the Iraq War with talk about WMDs, he was not talking about 30 year old canisters of mustard gas.

Here is a transcript of his speech from 2002 when he pointedly says that we should not "wait for a mushroom cloud" before invading Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2002/AL...

And a month earlier, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said this:

The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.

So you can point to all the op-ed pieces you want, but there it is in GWB's own goddamn words. Also, remember "aluminum tubes"? "Yellow cake uranium"?

How about this? http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/12/media/hulk-hogan-gawker-settlement/

Bubba Clem could be heard on the full tape saying that if he ever wanted to retire, he simply needed to release the video.

Clem originally claimed that Hogan, whose real name is Terry Gene Bollea, knew that he was being recorded. But after striking a settlement with Hogan, Clem walked that back.

Clem, who has denied being responsible for the tape's leak, has resisted Gawker's efforts to call him as a witness to be questioned about whether Hogan knew he was being filmed.

A lawyer for Clem filed a motion on Friday asking to be eliminated from the case. "Should these statements prove to be differing, and we do not concede that they are, Mr. Clem could be subject to a state prosecution for perjury or a federal false statement prosecution," the motion stated.

His attorney had previously said Clem intends to invoke his Fifth Amendment right to not testify against himself. Clem's request will be considered Monday.

Bubba really REALLY didn't want to be on the witness stand about it, because he'd likely be in jail.

Peoples were literally being marked for death through her insecure email server.

One of the biggest facts that right-wingers AVOID is that the State Department server was NO MORE SECURE than a commercial/private server, and in fact the State Dept. server was (eventually) hacked.

One could argue that such messages should have been sent over the separate secure system (not email), but that's a DIFFERENT ISSUE than whether the "regular" office email system was more secure or not than her personal server.

They were BOTH Chevy's, not Lexuses.

The state department has said that her mail server was never authorized and would not have been permitted had she asked:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/...

She disregarded the Freedom of Information Act by keeping her official State Department communications on her server and therefore unavailable for retrieval and archiving as per FOIA.

That's illegal - she broke the law simply by operating her own server.

Security and the hacking of her server is irrelevant. Clinton stripping classified headers off of documents is irrelevant. Those charges, if proven, will simply add to her punishment (if there is any at all).

In a just world, she would have already been convicted in a court of law. What we know she did, by her own admission, should be enough for criminal prosecution and should disqualify her from the presidency.

But this ideology is shared by only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.

A dangerous fraction. "Islam has bloody borders".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/...
http://www.dailysabah.com/afri...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/...

My claim is this difference isn't due to some fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. It comes from a particular extremist ideology that happens to be very influential in Islam right now.

That's because of reformations that occurred in Christianity and elsewhere. That isn't going to happen if people keep apologizing for current Islam by making shitty moral equivalences. Islam has been violent and fascist for a long time over a wide geographical area.

I also think Islam is going to be much harder to reform, because while you can point to some shitty parts of the Old Testament and Jesus saying he wasn't there to change the old law in the New Testament, his message was one of peace, love, and virtue. While that was completely ignored during Christianity's aggressive period, the seed was at least there to be returned to. Islam was born a bloody and violent religion, and has "Jihad" at its core.

I mean Mohammad Ali was a Muslim! Do you think he was an extremist?

Funny you should mention that. Yes, he was, though not a militant one.

But this ideology is shared by only a tiny fraction of the Muslim population.

A dangerous fraction. "Islam has bloody borders".

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/...
http://www.dailysabah.com/afri...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/...

My claim is this difference isn't due to some fundamental difference between Islam and Christianity. It comes from a particular extremist ideology that happens to be very influential in Islam right now.

That's because of reformations that occurred in Christianity and elsewhere. That isn't going to happen if people keep apologizing for current Islam by making shitty moral equivalences. Islam has been violent and fascist for a long time over a wide geographical area.

I also think Islam is going to be much harder to reform, because while you can point to some shitty parts of the Old Testament and Jesus saying he wasn't there to change the old law in the New Testament, his message was one of peace, love, and virtue. While that was completely ignored during Christianity's aggressive period, the seed was at least there to be returned to. Islam was born a bloody and violent religion, and has "Jihad" at its core.

I mean Mohammad Ali was a Muslim! Do you think he was an extremist?

Funny you should mention that. Yes, he was, though not a militant one.

True, the power to negotiate treaties belongs to the Executive and the power to ratify a treaty belongs to the Senate.

Of course, the Senate is free to proclaim its intention to not ratify a treaty based on the information at hand. Plus, there's the whole notion that Obama knew damn well that the Senate would not ratify any such "treaty". So he just proclaimed that he was not negotiating a treaty, but instead working on a "non-binding agreement with some plans for enforcement" in a shallow attempt to bypass the ratification power of the Senate. It would seem to me that if he says he was not negotiating a treaty, then claiming the power to negotiate a treaty is moot.

As CNN put it at the time:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/12/...

If it looks like a treaty, walks like a treaty and talks like a treaty, is it a treaty?

According to the White House, only if the President of the United States says it is.
That's infuriating Republicans and even some Democrats, who are demanding that the Obama administration submit any final nuclear deal with Iran to Congress for approval.

"This is clearly a treaty," Arizona Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday. "They can call it a banana, but it's a treaty."

The GOP position could jeopardize the long-term survival of any Iran deal, and it represents the party's newest clash with President Barack Obama over the limits of executive authority, as Republicans object to a pact they warn could eventually give Tehran a nuclear bomb.
It's that skepticism that has largely led the White House to define the deal as a "nonbinding agreement" rather than a "treaty," which the Constitution requires Senate "advice and consent" on.

The distinction -- and whether it can legitimately be used to shut out Congress -- turns on complicated and unresolved questions of constitutional law. While Republicans call foul, the administration defends the differentiation as perfectly sound, and no surprise.
Secretary of State John Kerry stressed Wednesday that the administration never intended to negotiate a treaty.

"We've been clear from the beginning. We're not negotiating a 'legally binding plan.' We're negotiating a plan that will have in it a capacity for enforcement," he said at a Senate hearing.

That doesn't sit well with Republicans, many of whom believe the Senate's constitutional role is being bypassed.

Idaho Sen. James Risch dismissed the administration's argument: "Let there be no mistake, this is a treaty that is being negotiated. It's a treaty and should be treated as such."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/2...

As of 07/2015, Apple had 203 billion cash on hand. Do you think a $5 billion building is so much more than a company acquisition such as recently announced Linkdin ($26 billion)?

They need a new campus, they can afford to buy a nice one, how is it bad spending to build a nice building in SV?

Really? Hmm...seems to be...no. And no, and no, and doesn't appear to be so either. Looks like they went hand in hand, but he was more then happy to pledge allegiance to ISIS.

So when's that dialog happening?

The terrorist was an American citizen. Therefore, domestic terrorism.

Is it really when he pledged allegiance to ISIS?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/...

He's another fucking MUZZIE, ya twit.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/12/...

Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to ISIS, official says

According to the timeline posted by the media, the gunman initially exchanged fire with three cops at 2am. They did not pursue him. 100 cops arrive. They do not attempt to enter. At 5am, the SWAT team finally breaches and kills the terrorist.

That left the attacker with 3 whole hours to kill his hostages. Shades of Columbine, where the police were similarly afraid to respond until they had ridiculously overwhelming force.

both France and Germany continue to reject the company's validity in their regions

This is such a great news for all the little Statists out there: a multi-billion corporation (spit!) loses to the government officials seeking to retain control of transportation — as well as the massive fees collected from and the influence over those already "in" the system.

Meanwhile, a Boston Uber driver filed a federal lawsuit

Is not it great, when a poor little Joe Shmoe can file a federal lawsuit against such a multi-billion dollar corporation on his own? Is this news not the right answer to the folks lamenting needing millions of dollars to legally fight such an opponent?

illegally classifying drivers as independent contractors to avoid providing full employee benefits

That a distinction even exists — allowing the enforcers from the Executive branch to make life hell for business-owners without even bothering with the Judiciary — is itself a major achievement for the Statism.

Of course, they only begin to complain about "overly strong government", when the wrong guy is about to take the reins. When it is their man, they wish he was a dictator — to do "more good quicker".

just "how sleazy" Uber really is.

There is that... Shortly after Uber hired David Plouffe (the guy instrumental to putting Obama into office), I started getting spam from the company. E-mails asking me, whether I know, how "Uber helps minority drivers" or "how Uber helps the environment". That really was as sleazy a Democratic campaigns get, but the above-mentioned Statists usually lap this sort of thing up — even if the spam campaign misfired in my case and I know begin searching for a ride with Lyft.

Maj. Bradley Podliska, an intelligence officer in the Air Force Reserve who describes himself as a conservative Republican, told CNN that the committee trained its sights almost exclusively on Clinton after the revelation last March that she used a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state. That new focus flipped a broad-based probe of the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, into what Podliska described as "a partisan investigation."

Podliska, who was fired after nearly 10 months as an investigator for the Republican majority, is now preparing to file a lawsuit against the select committee next month, alleging that he lost his job in part because he resisted pressure to focus his investigative efforts solely on the State Department and Clinton's role surrounding the Benghazi attack.

And it would be really really nice if we ever had a congressional investigation into why we invaded the wrong country. You know, Iraq. Have you forgotten that? No involvement in the 9/11 attacks, no weapons of mass destruction (except the left over ones from when Regan and Cheney were best buds with Saddam Husein).

There has never been a official accounting for why the US invaded Iraq. There lots of hearings about "faulty intelligence", which were grand political theater to lay blame on the CIA, FBI, NSA, FCC, FAA, NBC, CNN, CBS, ASPCA, FFA (Future Farmers of America), Girl Scouts, etc. But the decision was made in the White House, not by intelligence agencies or the Congress or the judiciary.

There was the Iraq Study Group, which was just about as useful as it sounds. It was not done by a government entity, it was just funded by Congress. It had no subpoena power, so no one could be compelled to testify, and nobody with any direct involvement showed up. Not a surprise. It was designed to produce no useful result, and it succeeded brilliantly.

The one other official investigation was about Chaney leaking Valery Plame's covert position at the CIA, which lead to the conviction of Scooter Libby for obstruction of justice. Libby took a bullet for Chaney, and then got his sentence committed by Bush. You want to see how a real successful government coverup works, that's how it's done. Democrats aren't anywhere in that leage, but then the Republicans get so much more practice.

Fool me once, shame on Hillary
1980's-1992: Served on board of Walmart, union buster. Nobody there ever heard her support unions.
1990's-early 2000's Hillary: I support my husband's push for NAFTA
Democrat Party supporting Unions: This is (provably) not good for us
2007-2008 Election season Hillary: I think NAFTA was a bad idea and I oppose free trade with Columbia
2007-2008 Hillary supporters: Hillary is allowed to change her mind (sound familiar?)

Fool me twice, shame on me
2011: Emails show she LOBBIED Congress to push for free trade with Columbia, which passed!
2012-2014 Hillary: I'm fully behind the Trans Pacific Partnership (she said this publicly 45 times claiming this is the 'gold standard')
(NOTE AFTER SHE SAID NAFTA WAS BAD!)
Democrat Party supporting Unions: This is not good for us
Sanders said TPP was not good!
2015-2016 Election season Hillary: I'm (now) against the Trans Pacific Partnership

It's a deal. I can give you 120,000 of them.

Ready for it? The most common password was "123456".

That will be $38,400 please.

http://time.com/4254801/donald...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/poli...
http://mashable.com/2016/03/12...

"In the old days," Trump added, protesters would be "carried out on stretchers."

When a Black Lives Matter protester was punched and kicked by attendees at a Trump rally last fall, Trump remarked the next day that "maybe he should have been roughed up."

"I hear the (Ricketts) family, who own the Chicago Cubs, are secretly spending $'s against me. They better be careful. They have a lot to hide," Trump tweeted.

Orwell was prescient, but he didn't foresee that his surveillance state would be sold to "consumers" as the latest shiny toy.

Are you sure? (Thanks, Bruce.) Gamers often buy Vizio TVs, that seems like part of their latest shiny toy. (Vizio was one of the first to offer a super-low-latency no-processing mode.)

You should stop reading faux news - the Ghanaians are producing their own cars http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/29/africa/ghana-katanka-cars-feat/index.html - and even bicycles made from bamboo http://www.un.org/climatechange/blog/2014/08/bamboo-bikes-initiative-ghana/

Companies have grown very obnoxious: Samsung's TV which listens to what is said in your home so it can deliver targeted ads http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/0... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/tech... and Microsoft's Windows 10 which spies on everything you do http://bgr.com/2015/07/31/wind... http://www.independent.co.uk/l...

Unlikely people would buy a Samsung's TV if they knew about this, but Microsoft has a virtual monopoly we can't avoid. Time for the FTC to stop these repugnant companies for abusing their dominant positions.

The country is owned by a corrupt royal family of a medieval autocratic monarchy. The price of oil is in the tank and they just had their first ever bond sale to raise cash.

They are also under increased threat from Iran as a result of the US tilting towards Iran and against them. Iran re-entering the oil market just makes it less likely for the Saudis to recover, and more difficult to bribe their restive populace. Add to that Iran inciting Shia insurgencies like in Yemen, and the stage is ripe for that country to be another satellite state of Iran, like Iraq or Syria

Middle class typically runs from ~$46K to $140K per household. The top 1% starts at $428K, quite a bit above the middle class level.

The country is owned by a corrupt royal family of a medieval autocratic monarchy. The price of oil is in the tank and they just had their first ever bond sale to raise cash.

Sounds like you invested in them, financially if not emotionally. 10 secs of searching shows they're under federal investigation for fraud, and have themselves invalidated 2 years of tests basically admitting it was all bogus.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/1...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/08b1...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

I note now that you have a fixed idea, to which you do not seem to consider worthy of discussing alternatives, that people who grow up without the arts are less well-rounded, less happy, worse coders and probably less smart.

Correct.

I'm going to note that you have provided absolutely no evidence for your assertions

http://pss.sagepub.com/content...

http://www.health.harvard.edu/...

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/comput...

You not only need society's permission but its active support to run any kind of business without having to have your own personal army of thugs.

The government's role is to protect me from violence and help me enforce fair contracts. It must not be allowed to dictate, what services can be offered, by whom, at what price, etc. That it increasingly does so, is an obvious violation of our liberties.

Dunno about him, but I much prefer a strong state

Yep, Statists gonna State...

over which I have democratic control in the form of my vote

Yeah? And how is it working out for you? When a business needs government's permission to offer you their service? Do you have "democratic control" over Internet-service provision, for example? Are you happy with the government's ability to shut down Uber and Lyft? With the government, that can demand your cell-phone data from your cellular provider — and get it, or else the provider may run into difficulties renewing its license? With the police, who can confiscate your life savings on suspicion of tax-dodging, or simply because you have "too much" cash on you?

Is this the "strong state" you clamor for? Yeah, I know, let's all go raise awareness — that will surely help our strong, but benevolent and kind-hearted rulers realize the errors, nay, imperfections of their ways.

The freedom to pursue happiness is oh-so overrated...

The court has already announced that it was deadlocked in an important case concerning public sector unions as well as two others.

Source: CNN

Each time they deadlocked, they decided to do something else instead. It also is refusing to accept controversial cases.

I think it's sad that you believe the examples you presented don't happen to caucasians too.

Ok, I'll bite. Per capita, do the different ethnic groups in this country experience the same level of racism?

Minorities do no have a monopoly on being treated poorly by others.

We are not talking about merely being treated poorly by others. We are talking about systemic abuse and roadblocks that some groups experience at a much greater frequency than others.

Furthermore, I provided specific examples the nature and frequency of which are backed by history. Unlike you, I did not just talk about people being treated badly. Bad treatment is something that affects all poor people regardless of race. But there is a very specific subset of mistreatment that occurs again and again, with some groups getting the brunt of it, which is part of this country's history.

I refer, again, to last year story about lending discrimination (link here.) A better article about this specific case can be found here .

I will also refer to you to the lawsuit brought against Toyota for discriminating against Blacks and Asians (link here.)

I will also refer to you to the recent case in Denver of six Black employees and one White whistleblower against a warehouse with a habit of calling blacks “lazy, stupid Africans” and punishing those who complained. Link here.)

Again, this is not about, as you put it, believing bad shit doesn't happen to Caucasians. This is beyond what we think of bad shit happening in life. This is methodical, hard-to-eradicate racism whose targets are very specific.

I believe everyone should get treated fair, and about all, equally. Unless you are saying that all groups are systematically getting the same levels bad treatment (and you can prove it), your argument has no leg to stand on.

These are the sorts of comments which destroy my karma...because nobody wants to hear the voice of reason, nobody has any memory, or is able to do a simple google search.

These reefs have been "in danger" and scientists have been "caught by surprise" every 2-3 years for the last 20 years. Just do a simply google search and you'll see when the greenies were worried about dredging in 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.com/great-b...

Then, UNESCO took the reefs off the endangered list in 2015:

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/unes...

And that was after the reef supposedly lost "half it's coral" in 2012:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/...

And that was after the other "wakeup call" in 2011:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/...

And so on, and so on, and so on.

In truth, the reefs are growing and shrinking, as they always have, for hundreds of thousands of years. All this is is more fearmongering for the green religion, because they have "demands" they want met. Just like we've been hearing about the "thousands of acres" of rainforest being destroyed since the early 90s - which has far exceeded the actual acres of total rainforests twice over - yet there seems to still be quite a bit of rainforest left. It's all just fearmongering. It's really that simple.

These are the sorts of comments which destroy my karma...because nobody wants to hear the voice of reason, nobody has any memory, or is able to do a simple google search.

These reefs have been "in danger" and scientists have been "caught by surprise" every 2-3 years for the last 20 years. Just do a simply google search and you'll see when the greenies were worried about dredging in 2014:

http://www.ibtimes.com/great-b...

Then, UNESCO took the reefs off the endangered list in 2015:

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/unes...

And that was after the reef supposedly lost "half it's coral" in 2012:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/...

And that was after the other "wakeup call" in 2011:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/03/...

And so on, and so on, and so on.

In truth, the reefs are growing and shrinking, as they always have, for hundreds of thousands of years. All this is is more fearmongering for the green religion, because they have "demands" they want met. Just like we've been hearing about the "thousands of acres" of rainforest being destroyed since the early 90s - which has far exceeded the actual acres of total rainforests twice over - yet there seems to still be quite a bit of rainforest left. It's all just fearmongering. It's really that simple.

the only message poor white people hear from the left is... you have white privilege.

I grew up as a poor white kid. The only privilege I had was what I worked for.

Sure, now tell me I had privilege but I just didn't know it ... you're right (about not knowing it). I saw no evidence of it in any part of my life.

I'm going to ask you to please read this twice, very carefully, before you decide to comment.

In this context, privilege is the fact you will most likely never suffer from loan discrimination practices (see link to recent story.)

Privilege is the fact that no one is ever going to tell you you are a quota hire (specially by people less qualified than you.)

Privilege is the fact that no lady is every going to hold her purse a little harder when you are next to her, even when you are wearing a business suit and carrying an expensive suit case.

Privilege is the fact that you can go house/condo hunting at an upscale zip code wearing shorts and sandals, and that you will never be forced to dress business casual just to get a sales person to make time for you (or to lie you that they do not have any new units left even though they do.)

Privilege is the fact no one is going to intercept you as you take your kids for a walk around your gated community to ask, to demand at point blank if you live here.

(*) All the things I listed, they have happened to me as a professional Hispanic of good financial means. African-Americans have it worse. I've personally witness people denying jobs to Black people TWICE freely stating that color was the factor. The things I've seen... SMH.

In this context, privilege is not about making your life easier, or giving you hand outs.

It's about being able to live like a human, without having a system bent over in tripping you as you try to live your life. It's living without being surrounded by ignorant assholes who 1) assume the worst of you, and 2) act upon those assumptions in such ways that 3) have actual, measurable negative effects in your life.

You struggled and succeeded. You deserve credit for that. Now, think of those struggles and imagine a system that, at every other struggle, it puts an asshole that tries to trip you, assault you and sometimes even lynch you.)

The word privilege in this context is not about you or whether your struggles were real, or whether you deserve praise for the fruits of you labor. It is not about blaming you, you specifically. It is about the fact we live in a nation that, even after 5 fucking decades after the civil rights acts, it is still plagued by systemic discrimination.

Privilege here stands for the fact that the fundamental right of being treated equally is still treated as a privilege that can be denied to a whole class of people whenever a hateful motherfucker feels like it.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/3...

This right here is another example of all that is wrong with the gun conversation.

"stopping gun deaths" translates to "well, if we take away all the guns, we'll be fine!"

Stupid idiots...

The problem with murders and deaths has nothing to do with guns, everything to do with poverty, crime, and other issues...

2/3 of all gun deaths are suicide, but the US doesn't have a higher suicide rate than the rest of the modern world, we just use guns to do it.

That 33,000 gun death number that Clinton keeps tossing out is crap, almost 20K of it are people who shot themselves.

People who want to die, will find a way to do it...

When you consider that the majority of gun murders are gang related, that means that fewer than 5,000 gun deaths in the US are non-gang related.

Considering the 300+ million guns in the US (1 in 3 homes has a gun in it) and the 320 million people, that is a rounding error.

Guns are not the problem, poverty and culture are the problem, but people refuse to become educated on the subject.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015
Labour force participation rate 62.5, which was 1/10 of a percent from the lowest level since mid 70s.
Biggest surge, 300,000 part time jobs created rather than full time jobs
Janet Yellen 'was looking for improvement of the job market'. How is that an improvement.
Manufacturing ISM number on that day was at a 6 year low
Service sector ISM number was below estimates
Retail sales were abysmal
Consumer confidence was falling
everything was pointing to a slowing economy

First, labor force participation rate is a total bullshit statistic. During the country's biggest periods of sustained growth, the labor force participation rate was at its lowest. It's a BS statistic because nobody knows what it's supposed to be or if it's supposed to be 59% or 83%. Higher workforce participation does not indicate a strong economy.

And maybe you don't remember what was going on in 2008, when in one year we lost 2.6 million jobs.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/0...

And when you pay below that cost, you're effectively asking for a handout, for the employee and their friends or family (or, in some cases, the government) to subsidize your business.

Already there: McDonald's http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/2... Walmart http://www.californiaprogressr... and more Walmart http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Perhaps, though he was at least smart enough to ask for and get immunity from the FBI & DoJ to cooperate with their investigation.

It's actually quite difficult counting the number of bad omens for her we've seen.

Uh... there actually are.

We'll disregard the ancient rules supposedly written by deities, mostly because they're not sufficient to cover the needs of any society within the past two thousand years.

In more recent ancient history, there has been the divine right of kings. Under such a system, kings are exempt from laws because their authority is absolute, generally held to be originally granted by a deity and passed down through a bloodline (unless the ruling family fell out of favor and a new military victor gained the deity's favor, which was obvious due to that victor's victory).

There have also previously been separate rule sets for peasants and nobles, and to an extent those are still in effect in places where a society's caste system has entered its legal structure.

The term I use, "rule of man" is a more general term for a system where an individual (or group) use their sense of justice to override written rules, effectively turning every case into a battle of celebrity. That's effectively the case in rural India now, where old village councils hand out arbitrary judgments based on their whims and local politics, often resulting in harsh sexism. The core problem with any "rule of man" system is that a human lifespan is usually too short and too narrow a perspective to apply a widespread fair justice. There are a few exceptions, but it is not a reliable system.

In contrast, "rule of law" means that the law is written to be the rule. Before someone acts (as in this case, before accessing a system without authorization), they can go read the laws and find out what's legal. They can ask a lawyer for advice if needed. At no point is their fate ever left up to whether someone else thinks they're guilty or not. They can decide their own fate.

The downside to rule of law is that most laws aren't written perfectly. They don't cover every situation perfectly, and society's values change. To resolve that, the court has the ability to interpret the laws to a certain degree of freedom, but the vast majority of the law is still already written specifically, and case histories are usually public, so a judge does not need to rely on his own narrow perspective unless the dispute is an entirely new situation. Even then, parallels are drawn to previous similar situations, so we are relying as little as possible on the judgement of one person.

What's to stop people from creating their own hydrogen at home?

Common sense. Conversion of electricity to hydrogen is only about 60% efficient, so you lose 40% right off the top. Then it takes more energy to compress it. If you store it in a metal hydride, that takes more energy, plus increases the weight by an order of magnitude. There are many more problems with hydrogen, such as metal embrittlement and permeability through almost anything.

Hydrogen fuel has mainly been pushed as greenwashing, or cynical phoney environmentalism designed to delay adoption of electric cars based on actual sensible technology like lithium batteries. This was most famously done by George W. Bush, to divert research from battery powered electric cars.

Speaking as someone who knows squat about cruises - why is Carnival an unacceptable option? And if they're a bad choice then what's a good choice?

Carnival's main attraction is it's low price. They also had a lot of problems a few years back - possibly related to that cheapness. There were some ship breakdowns, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/... and the infamous "Poop Cruise" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/...

and morehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/15/second-carnival-cruise-in-week-experiences-trouble-at-sea.html .

I think that the situation has improved. But the cheapness being a major attraction tends to attract cheap people.

Speaking as someone who knows squat about cruises - why is Carnival an unacceptable option? And if they're a bad choice then what's a good choice?

Carnival's main attraction is it's low price. They also had a lot of problems a few years back - possibly related to that cheapness. There were some ship breakdowns, http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/14/... and the infamous "Poop Cruise" http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/17/...

and morehttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/15/second-carnival-cruise-in-week-experiences-trouble-at-sea.html .

I think that the situation has improved. But the cheapness being a major attraction tends to attract cheap people.

Doubt this could happen? It already has.

It was an attack on a homeless man that gained extra media attention when authorities said the accused assailants were heard saying, "Donald Trump was right," as they beat the man with a metal pipe and then urinated on him.

"All these illegals need to be deported," they allegedly said, as they beat the man as he slept near the JFK/UMass MBTA subway station about 12:30 a.m.

Trump sloughed off any responsibility for the attack and said "the people that are following me are very passionate". The man who was beaten was a legalized immigrant from Latin America.

When Trump claims that Mexicans are rapists and criminals you can't pretend that it didn't encourage his followers to act violently. This is what happened during the civil rights era when blacks were attacked with impunity by angry white people. It still goes on today: Trevor Martin/George Zimmerman. There are a whole lot of people out there who are looking for an excuse, and Trump's political platform is to legitimatize their anger. You can't pretend to be surprised when violence is the result.

When you say that Trump and Clinton are the same you might as well join a white racist organization, because those people take Trump at his word.

Exploding vaporizer rips hole in man's tongue

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/18/...

Will this usher in a new era of web errors?

EgyptAirror 804: Wreckage found.

Too soon?

> the Feds and drug tests are mandatory.

And you are ok with the fact that the drug testing companies are generally the ones who push for those laws?

Lets not forget Florida where the governor pushing for drug testing people on welfare actually owned the drug testing company which made millions off the deal. That is really what its about.

Hell, going as far back as the first marijuana laws, they were pushed for; at the federal level; by the head of the FBN, the very organization that had been in charge of alcohol prohibition and was now worried they might lose their jobs with nothing to do.

Seems kind of wrong to me deny people jobs just so other people can make profits.

And that is before we even get to the Nixon administration where insiders from his own administration have admitted they pushed drug laws as a way to strike back at grass roots political movements:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/...

"We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

That's right. Bigotry is perfectly okay if it is done politely.. by friends

Chuck Schumer didn't do us any favors when he added fuel to panic and caused a bank run on IndyMac.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co...

http://www.cnbc.com/id/2565430...

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/1...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

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

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

We should make an islamic instagram app that automatically superimposes hijab/niqab on all females in a given shot. Hek it just removes all females from pics

There would be multiple markets for that app.

No I haven't, because one of the biggest MTV prank shows is filmed in Texas. But oh yeah: everyone is afraid of your peashooter. I'm sure you will be protecting us all real soon now.

People are every day. http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/12/...