Slashdot Mirror

Tinfoil, what? MS and NSA relationship has been headlines since 1998. What rock have you been living under?

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

It's gotten to the point where no vendor hip to the NSA's power will even start building products without checking in with Fort Meade first. This includes even that supposed ruler of the software universe, Microsoft Corp. "It's inevitable that you design products with specific [encryption] algorithms and key lengths in mind," said Ira Rubenstein, Microsoft attorney and a top lieutenant to Bill Gates. By his own account, Rubenstein acts as a "filter" between the NSA and Microsoft's design teams in Redmond, Wash. "Any time that you're developing a new product, you will be working closely with the NSA," he noted.

Technically it began in 1998 with the Verizon Business partnership.

MS hasn't even been secretive, why should they? They're just assisting law enforcement in doing their jobs

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

No, offline unexpectedly as in the whole plant goes down for three days because of some errant bird poop.

=Smidge=

Given that it costs about 1.7 cents to make a penny, you can claim back the losses on your taxes. Bingo!

Aside from many of the privacy issues (already mentioned here by other) was that fact that you needed an invite in order to initially register for an account. When there was some buzz about google + I thought I'd check it out, but couldn't. This was there for at least 3 months and if you somehow got one, you were limited to sending out 15 invites! I don't think I know a single person on Facebook with less than 15 "friends".

That was the real suicide for G+ in my opinion. Most people generally don't give a crap about their privacy (at least non-tech types); that's why they're on Facebook in the first place; to tell the world what they're up to and see what they're up to. But if the entire point of a social networking site is to get you and your friends using it, then why the hell would you restrict that or limit that? Maybe google thought this would word because Facebook was initially college-exclusive. Or maybe because gmail was initially invite only; they didn't think much of it. But this was the far bigger nail in the coffin in my opinion. They needed to get as many people as possible to jump ship from Facebook (or at least try it out, or have accounts on both) in order to get it to work, but they put in an artificial scarcity on access. Surprise surprise; if you got an invite and did join, you found it was a ghost town after a month and went back to Facebook where all your friends are.

Facebook doesn't enforce it's real name policy particularly well though, it's mostly only used to beat spam accounts and so forth over the head. A number of my friends on Facebook have never used anything other than blatantly false aliases (blatant because they couldn't possibly be people's real names, or are obviously the names of well fictional characters).

In contrast, Google was trying to get people to prove their names by sending in real ID from day one no matter how harmless you were and if there's one thing people aren't going to do, it's send Google even more sensitive personal data like passport and driving license details.

IME, you have things exactly reversed. Facebook has all sorts of hate for pseudonyms on their establishment. Canceling accounts and making them email in pictures of real ID to get them reactivated. Friends of mine that had fake names, nicknames, or professional names would all get canceled and eventually gave up or showed real ID to associate. There was a particular hatred of drag queens, following protest, FB backdown, but then not really. Part of that was wanting people with stage names to not have personal pages but professional pages which operate under different rules and can't be used reliably for anything really without paying FB advertising money. Meanwhile, Google+, has me listed as a nickname that matches my email and I've never had any issues.

Mind you, hospitals aren't all that sterile. In an article less than a year old, it was estimated that ~4% of hospital patients acquired infections while in the hospital. And having family members on a hospital staff, I've experienced how infectious diseases tend to concentrate in hospitals. MRSA infections of surgical wounds come immediately to mind. . .but less serious infectious diseases seem to cluster in hospitals as well, like colds and influenzas. . .

That jewel goes to the pulldown tray in front of you... where you eat your meals.
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09...

As far as inside the plant, the security is well beyond average. Everyone who was working had to be accountable for even the path they walked within the building, they were given one path, if they deviated at all, security was there to usher them to the correct area. The whole place is well monitored.

I understand that, but you also have to consider what that security was designed to protect against, and what it wasn't.

Is the security room in a secure area that is not easy to access quickly from the outside?

Is the front door/front drive physically secured against forced entry?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINIO...

That is an interesting read...

There's no reason to limit it to past secretaries of state. There's been a LOT of flagrant violations of the rules before Hillary.

Jeb did practically the same thing:

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

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/05/...

And George W. Bush did even worse, breaking the law in doing so:

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

He even refused to turn over e-mails under subpoena: "The White House stated it might have lost five million emails"

At least 5 different investigations were hampered by his private e-mail account:

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

Unlike George, Hillary appears to have broke no laws, turned over all the data to investigators, and isn't hampering any investigations.

Aboslutely

> Look, I don't care if you want to save face here. It really doesn't matter to me. The point is that Bernie has no chance.

As of today, Bernie has a better chance than Clinton (55% to 43% against Trump, vs. Hillary's 52%) in a general election.

But 9 months is a loooong time in politics.

Hillary the soon to be indicted felon? Mishandling classified information is no laughing matter. Ordering underlings to strip classification markings to send information via unsecure email is even more serious.

(note that the third sentence is completely made up, probably by yourself)

Nope.

Senator: Newly released Clinton email 'disturbing'

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee released a scathing statement Friday, calling on Hillary Clinton to "come clean" after the State Department released an email in which she asked an aide to send information on a non-secure system after attempts to send the document securely failed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley said the email, released at about 1:30 am Friday morning along with about 3,000 other emails from Clinton's State Department tenure, is "disturbing," and "appears to show the former Secretary of State instructing a subordinate to remove the headings from a classified document and send it to her in an unsecure manner."

And now a special request . . .

The year was 1993 and the Clintons were in the White House, and there we got a glimpse into the character of Hillary Clinton. . .

Travelgate Inquiry Suggests Signs of Lies by First Lady
How Hillary Clinton sicced the FBI on the White House travel office

Anyone who has ever been frustrated with an automated telephone call support helpline, an alarm clock mistakenly set to 'p.m.' instead of 'a.m.,' or any of the countless frustrations that come with interacting with computers, has experienced the problem of 'brittleness' that plagues automated systems,

While true, I can also recount numerous frustrations originating from human interventions that lead to disaster such as initiating an emergency procedure ultimately leading to a nuclear reactor explosion, failed controlled burns or environmental disasters. Even in everyday life, trying to reason with a customer rep from bank A or government department B, can be as frustrating an unhelpful as trying to figure out which number I should push. As such, the existence of issues in automated system is hardly a justification disregard issues that keeping humans in the loop introduces, with the inconvenience that humans cannot be patched easily: they will keep making the same mistakes. I'd be interested in having statistics about the number of errors over a certain number of years between a fully automated system and human-included system to fully appreciate the benefits of one or the other.

While I'm all for overview and proper design, automation will become inevitable because of the advantages it can provide in certain type of conflicts - namely with technologically advanced adversaries. While some militaries may afford to have large amount of man-power and resources to maintain all these systems, countries with lower GDPs, large territories to defend, growing ambitions and lower ethical concern about consequences of potential errors will likely have automated defense systems to offset the support costs of human operators. In turn these systems will have a faster decision-making loop, providing an advantage over non-fully automated systems.

Of course the introduction of automated systems introduces the risk of hacking and thus the cost-saving of implementing automated systems will somehow go into stronger network defenses. However keep in mind that while totally possible to hack these system to actually leverage them against the users, this is not a trivial task either and requires skilled hackers, not your typical certification-hunting pen tester. However, network defenses are being automated as well, for the better or worst. A large chunk of network defense can be done by civilians (and probably will have to be given the competitive salary of the industry).

In any case, yes, we do need to careful with these systems and yes they have a lethal power, but so does many other systems, including systems with humans "in the loop". This should not prevent the development of automated systems, much like I don't believe it will stop the development of automated cars, planes and trains, much like it didn't stop the automation of the stock market despite glitches, which can also have tragic consequences. It needs constant testing, updating and training to new, unexpected issues.

The back door is already there.

Prove it or STFU

Apple has claimed it will take "two to four weeks [...] for six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time" to comply with the government's request.

If a company the size of Apple can spend about $100,000 of developer time to get to your data, I think it is only semantics to say the back door doesn't already exist. It would be the equivalent of me saying your house is secure from me breaking in because it would cost me 25 cents to create a master key to your home.

You very obviously don't understand - if Apple did what they are told to, after a couple of weeks the iPhone still wouldn't be "cracked", It just wouldn't be unreasonably hard to crack it anymore. Well, at least if the guy actually only used a 4-digit key to lock the phone,

Huh? I was talking about Iowa, not NV. And the Cruz camp admitted it and apologized to Carson, but it was still not legit. Here's the Cruz apology: http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...

The back door is already there.

Prove it or STFU

Apple has claimed it will take "two to four weeks [...] for six to ten Apple engineers and employees dedicating a very substantial portion of their time" to comply with the government's request.

If a company the size of Apple can spend about $100,000 of developer time to get to your data, I think it is only semantics to say the back door doesn't already exist. It would be the equivalent of me saying your house is secure from me breaking in because it would cost me 25 cents to create a master key to your home.

For an employer to tell their employees to do or take a political stance?

Not really, especially now that Corporations are people and have all the rights and less responsibility than flesh and blood people.

Its a two edged sword though http://www.hrcapitalist.com/20...

In teh case of a company like WalMart to "suggest" that it's employees vote a certain way, it becomes a WalMart issue, as well as a political one. There are those among us, inclusing myself, who have an issue with WalMart demanding my Tax dollars to subsidize their loww low prices every day.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/2...

http://www.americansfortaxfair...

So I think you can take away from the "suggestions" on how you should vote, is that they won't benefit you. There has sometimes been some pressure to remove tax exempt status from churches when their preachers tell them that they have to vote a certain way to be in compliance with God's will.

But if your company wants you to vote a certain way, they can "suggest" it, and in at will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... they can fire you for not voting they way they "suggest"

Texas? Are you refering to the state that has gone out of it''s way to hamper women's civil rights by enacting new barriers to abortion?

Or is it Texas - the state that has made it illegal for people who are legally women to use the women's washroom?

Or is it Texas - the state that just loves to hate on anyone not white?

Texax - where if you're not white and male, you're sh*t. No thanks.

Really ?, I have never been paid with a refrigerator full of money

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI...

"One of the things I'm going to do if I win... I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money," Trump said during a rally in Fort Worth, Texas.

O_o

I still find it odd that only ~70 years after WWII that there are so many incredibly ignorant people in the world who have either never learned, or forgotten about, everything leading up to WWII, and can't see the similarities in what is happening right now. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/27/...

Except that's exactly what they did.

Second time for me: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/...

How can you not like a plane nicknamed "Warthog"???

This is the first time I've ever sided with ISIS.

Go ISIS!!!

Second time for me: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/...

This is the second reason to like ISIS. The other reason is because they may be responsible for saving the A-10: http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/21/...

Yes, basically the US Government is the insurance company of last resort.

The same thing was done after 9/11, in return for accepting millions of dollars per family, the 9/11 victims agreed to not sue everyone into oblivion. The thinking is that no society good is gained from having multiple companies pushed into bankruptcy for an event that was largely beyond their control.

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/0...

The average was $2 million paid for each death and $400k for injury, but the amounts varied based on the income of the person hurt or killed.

---

If we had a serious nuclear meltdown that caused widespead damage, no private company can come in and clean it up, it becomes a job of the government to do that.

Just accepting that makes it easier to move forward. But I would support payments from nuclear power companies to the government to compensate them for that risk.

link please. This one doesn't count

Granted, some people can snap without warning and without history

Like this guy, who had no criminal history prior to driving around shooting people. http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/22/...

Stop working for shitty salaries in overpriced cities and the executives running these corporations will stop expecting people to ruin themselves in order to bloat the executive bonuses.

When you're staring at the want ads, on line job sites, the newspaper jobs section and anything else you can think of to find a job because you graduated 5 months ago and you're still looking for something that pays more than minimum wage, you notice something very disturbing. There are literally thousands of job postings for minimum wage jobs, and almost no postings for anything that would be considered middle class or up (maybe 1 listing in 20). Just because we have low unemployment doesn't mean that underemployment isn't rampant as hell. Sure there are plenty of other places to work, but they all pay the same crap starvation wages. Starbucks still pays the same crappy wage so that those fortunate enough to have found a solid job don't have to pay too $4 for a latte (ohhhhh, never mind, they charge that much anyways). So, all of these employees on the bottom decide to collectively have themselves a strike. What would it accomplish? The powers that be just ride it out and wait 3 weeks. Those employees will be back, and willing to do absolutely anything because, as this person so ineloquently stated, no money, no eat.

The basic trouble with the labor market, is that workers do not have the luxury of simply not engaging in the market if the terms are unfair. The employer can file chapter 11 and shut their doors, or can wait out a strike, or can simply fire the employee and get another one. In short, they have options. The employees however are stuck with the tyranny of having a stomach and an undeniable need to put food in it with shocking regularly. In short, they have no options.

What happens at the negotiating table when one party A needs party B, but party B doesn't need party A? Party A gets hosed. The free market theory requires that all parties have the option not to take part if the deal is not in their best interest. With the labor market, that is not the case. Workers must earn money or die. Whether the employers know that when they set wages is irrelevant, as they take advantage of it to offer minimum wage jobs nonetheless.

12.7% of American workers make less than $10 per hour. 51% of American workers make less than $14.50 per hour. That means that the average American employee will not earn more than $14.50 per hour until they are 40 years old.

Since 1980, median individual income has risen from $20,500 per year to $27,000 per year, an annual increase of about 0.8% per year. Over that same period, inflation has averaged 3.37%. after 35 years of that, buying power is only 28% of what it used to be, and wages are only up 31%. This means that the total buying power of the median wage today is only 36% of the median buying power in 1980. In effect, wages have fallen to 1/3 of what they were in 1980. This is partly offset by a massive increase in the number of women who are working (2 income households), as well as a marked increase in the number of hours that individual employees are working.

As if that wasn't enough, we are fast approaching a debt crisis, as our debt to GDP is quickly approaching the highest in American history. We have been giving out massive tax break to the wealthy for almost 40 years, and financing it by going into nati

I'm all for a right to privacy. But Mrs. Adams, TFS, and TFAs have all made the same mistake I'm seeing repeated over and over in this case. It is not the shooter's phone!

The phone belongs to his employer - the San Bernardino government. They're the ones who paid for it and the service. It was issued to the shooter, presumably for work-related use only, but the employer chose to overlook personal use like usually happens.

Apple isn't protecting our right to privacy. They're protecting their right to refuse to help the rightful owner of a phone figure out WTF a criminal did while in possession of their property. If their current stance holds up in court, think what it means if your phone is stolen. Apple or the carrier could know exactly where it is because it's reporting its GPS coordinates back to them, they will not be able to tell you, the rightful owner, or law enforcement where the phone is. Because the privacy of the criminal in possession of your property outweighs your rights as the property owner.

With all the rhetoric surrounding this case, I didn't learn a crucial fact until reading this CNN article - It is not the shooter's phone!

The phone belongs to his employer - the San Bernardino government. This is like a homeowner letting someone stay in his home, and the guest changes the locks. The guest then kills a bunch of people and himself. The homeowner wants to get back in and (clumsily) resets the lock so the old key won't work even if they managed to find it. They then ask the lock maker (Apple) to help them unlock the door, and Apple refuses.

I'm all for keeping the government out of my encrypted data. But this is the wrong case to fight that fight.

But now that you bring it up, at lease one case of zika in the US was transmitted via an infected man's semen..

So the wired link doesn't like my ad-blocker. So I said to myself "screw them" and went and found another link.

Virgin Galactic to unveil new spaceship

Yes it does have horrible auto play video that comes with an ad at the start, but I'd rather sit through that than be treated like Wired treats me.

Oh bullshit. Its one thing to have lower classified material be later classified higher. BUT there is indeed laws against mishandling TS codeword files. ALL are considered classified TS until they are declassified. You always consider them ultra sensitive and have to be ultra careful when dealing with them. You never email them to an unapproved server. She knew this and did it any ways (1200 times with 22 being deemed TS or higher).... as IDK.. she is a clinton and above the law?... and you dont see a problem with that? http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/29/... http://www.politico.com/story/... So you are wrong. She should be in jail.

Are you sure? I also did some quick math and came to a different conclusion, that we would probably *save* money.

Adult population of the U.S.(rounded up): 246,000,000

Gross Federal Tax Revenue of the U.S.: 3.3 trillion

Cost of providing all adults 1800/month: 443 billion

THINGS YOU COULD GET RID OF:
food stamps: 74 billion
soc sec ( just pensions ): 52 billion
Unemployment Insurance : 520 billion ( says CNN )

#http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-population-by-child-and-adult#detailed/1/any/false/869,36,868,867,133/39,40,41/416,417

http://www.cbpp.org/research/p...

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue...

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/2...

Deadlocking a supreme court for an entire year just to make a point seems a bit silly though.

Silly seems to be pro forma for this Congress. How many times did they engage in their quixotic attempts to repeal Obamacare?

In case you're wondering, it was over 60.

If colleges limited themselves to football (or ice hockey for some universities) and whichever of men's or women's basketball was more popular, almost every athletics department would make money.

That assertion is questionable, when you look at the way athletic departments spend money. At most schools, revenue has gone up significantly in the past decade, at many places even doubling or more. Yet schools aren't making larger profits -- instead, they just increase spending.

However, the more popular sports subsidize the less popular sports (Track & Field, Baseball / Softball, etc.) that don't make much or any revenue and then Title IX requirements mean that they have to offer funding for women's sports which typically make even less revenue.

Again, that's undoubtedly true, but that doesn't explain how doubling income (mostly without expanding those programs that didn't make money and already existed) doesn't result in increased profits.

If you read the link I gave above, you'll realize that this isn't a "rational market." It's an "arms race." Athletic departments generally have discretion over spending their income, and if they don't spend it -- they lose it... it goes back into the general university budget. So, if they increase profits, the athletic departments have motivation to spend them immediately -- and by doing so, they can try to gain an edge over competition. Thus, coach salaries, facilities costs, etc. continue to skyrocket.

Throwing out the other sports would just mean that the athletic departments would spend more money on coaches and facilities in the remaining sports.

Coaches are going to get well paid, but some are probably worth it given how much money the football/basketball program can bring in for the athletics department.

Again, the logic is circular. Coaches can demand more salaries because athletic programs make more money. Athletic programs then try to make even more money to attract better coaches, so salaries get pushed higher. If head coach salaries were 1/10th or 1/20th what they are EVERYWHERE in the major conferences, the system would still work fine and there would still be incredibly talented coaches out there for these sports. But if salaries are higher everywhere, schools increase revenues to afford them. The coaches often aren't "bringing in" that money -- they're forcing the schools to find ways to RAISE that money.

A good amount does go into scholarships for the athletes, a few of whom may not be able to otherwise afford to go to college. Some don't make the most of that opportunity, but that's not any less true of the general student population itself.

Well, when you have things like outright academic fraud, fake "classes" designed for athletes, etc., I think you can argue that some schools are deliberately encouraging their athletes to AVOID education and focus instead on what they were brought there to do... i.e., play sports.

TL;DR -- Athletic departments generally try to spend as much as comes in, so streamlining programs to "money-making" sports likely won't change that. And it's pretty clear what the priorities are when academics conflict with "student athletes" at big sports schools.

The solar plant is near Ouarzazate, which I estimate is about 300 miles from the southern tip of Spain. It's on the edge of the Sahara Desert, which should be a good location for more sunshine. Ouarzazate gets a little over 3,400 hours of sunshine per year while Gibraltar gets about 400 hours less. Also, as you go poleward, the sunlight is spread over a wider area, meaning that it's less intense at any given location. Gibraltar is at the southern tip of Spain, so this gets more pronounced if you go farther north. If you go north to Madrid, you can subtract roughly another 200-250 hours of sunlight each year while being nearly ten degrees latitude farther north. There's also a whole lot less seasonal variation in the amount of sunlight at Ouarzazate than at either location in Spain, making it more suitable for a constant supply of electricity that doesn't require being supplemented by something else.

The solar plant is actually at a great location, so it probably makes sense for Spain to by their electricity from Morocco than to build their own solar plant. In cold enough climates, the electricity demand might be high enough during winter that, if it can't be met with solar, it would be necessary to build another type of plant to supplement it or to buy the electricity from another country. It's much more cost-effective to have the plant in Morocco.

By the way, the original plan was to build the plant with European funding and supply the electricity to Europe, but the partners in Europe pulled out requiring the African Development Bank and the government of Morocco to save the project. Obviously the approach made sense to Europe at one point and, now that the plant is being built, might still be lucrative to them.

Flint is an issue with switching from a good water system to a more acidic and known polluted one to save a few bucks. That's coupled with STOPPING procedures which helped prevent lead-leeching/corrosion in pipes, DENYING the issue despite people with rashes, hair loss, and other extreme symptoms, and then VICTIM BLAMING and COVER UPS (hey, it's better, we tested it... in homes that have already added filters) when many cases started to surface. At the same time people and their children were being poisoned by lead - and the gov't was denying it - they added extra water coolers of nice clean water in the offices of those same government officials.

But hey, keep telling yourself how bad other countries are, and how yours is so much better. When the "best country in the world" is also a polluted, dry desert rock with a bunch of sick jobless people you can pat yourselves on the back that China is so much worse.

The first step to addressing a problem is to stop denying it exists. Part of that means you start to realize that "but hey... look over there" is a method to distract from the problems "over here"

CNN shows a roped off area in what appears to be a small thicket, while the second link shows a crater in a rice paddy. If you read the article in the second link, the 4th paragraph mentions another incident believed to be a meteorite struck a rice paddy on Jan 26. So the caption on that image is probably incorrect.

I actually came to the comments just to crack a joke about the current state of the art Indian engineering colleges. Kind of disappointed.

CNN shows a roped off area in what appears to be a small thicket, while the second link shows a crater in a rice paddy. If you read the article in the second link, the 4th paragraph mentions another incident believed to be a meteorite struck a rice paddy on Jan 26. So the caption on that image is probably incorrect.

I dunno . . . take a look at the fearless leader's latest invention: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01...

I think North Korea created this, because the fearless drinks so much.

Or they used this hangover free alcohol as rocket fuel for their new ICBM . . .

Coincidentally, I just read that Joe Alaskey, the recent voice of Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck has died. I don't know if he also did Foghorn Leghorn, but it wouldn't surprise me, Son, ah say, not one little bit.

Free? http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/15/... Well, assuming you can afford to have a family, sitting on your ass with them during your designated non-work hours is usually free.

Doesn't it burn your ass to know that if she were to get fired, she'd walk away with tens of millions of dollars?

Try one hundred million dollars.

Hahaha no.

The odds of EITHER Bernie OR Hillary getting 6 for 6 would be 1/32. But we are specifically talking about HILLARY, who is the candidate with all the shenanigans.

What you just did here is to insert your own a-priori personal bias into the statistics.

Your personal bias is fine. Just don't confuse it with statistics.
 

If Bernie won all the coins, it's not because he knows a guy, it's because 1/64 can happen.

Your statement "result X would show shenanigans if it favors candidate Y, but would be explained by random chance if it favors candidate Z" is a statement of personal bias, not a calculation of statistics.

Anyway, other posts say the 6 for 6 wasn't a the whole story anyway.

Yes, exactly. In fact, the best-documented results are from the counties that did their reporting using the election software (about half the counties reported using the software, and half reported by hand). In these counties, Sanders won six coin flips, and Clinton won one.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/02/...
So, a more interesting question might be this: given that there were about a dozen coin flips, and Clinton and Sanders won roughly equal numbers, what are the chances that the six that Clinton won would be commented on by the news media, while the six that Sanders won would be ignored? Is this random, or is this bias?

Of the seven coin flips/games of chance that were held in precincts using the Microsoft app, six of those were flips to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Clinton or Sanders. Of those six Clinton-vs.-Sanders coin flips, Sanders won five and Clinton one. The seventh coin flip was used to determine whether a county delegate slot went to Sanders or Martin O'Malley. Sanders won that coin flip as well. So in the seven coin flips that the Iowa Democratic Party has a record of, Sanders won six of them.

Plus there is the pesky detail that the newspapers did their own recounts afterwards and found that Bush would still have won.

Plus there is the pesky detail that two even larger groups of newspapers did even more comprehensive reviews and found that it could have gone either way depending on the counting standard.

If you don't want the Times, fine. How about CNN?