Slashdot Mirror

history has shown that the conservatives (who are holding all the money)

If you're going to use suck a laughably counter-factual meme as a foundational part of your thesis, be prepared to be laughed at.

Suck my balls, you ignoranus. You literally could not be more wrong. I notice also that you failed to provide a statistic, which makes sense, since you fail at every other conversational gambit as well.

Like how we used to do it for thousands of years? We always joked that engineers died of boredom within a few years of retiring.

I interned with a company that had 3 senior citizens in the back. They used to work at Ratheon and wanted to keep working. They sat in back talking about their grand kids listening to oldies soldering PCBs. They had near perfect hand eye coordination for their demographic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Worst case scenario is everyone dies, which isn't much different than a plane crash.

Evidently you aren't aware that 95.7% of surviving an accident in a plane. The vast majority of people actually do survive. When the National Transportation Safety Board studied accidents between 1983 and 2000 involving 53,487 passengers, they found that 51,207 survived.

It's unclear what the statistics might be for hyperloop but assuming instant fiery death is probably not going to be correct for the majority of failure modes.

How about this amataur statistic to compared to yours? If you want to talk about hyperloop which has not even been implemented yet, you should compare it with early implemented commercial airplane statistic instead of modern time (1983~2000). Even though the link I give is outdated already (it didn't collect newer data except the Malaysian one), it should give some ideas about early development of airplane safety...

Worst case scenario is everyone dies, which isn't much different than a plane crash.

Evidently you aren't aware that 95.7% of surviving an accident in a plane. The vast majority of people actually do survive. When the National Transportation Safety Board studied accidents between 1983 and 2000 involving 53,487 passengers, they found that 51,207 survived.

It's unclear what the statistics might be for hyperloop but assuming instant fiery death is probably not going to be correct for the majority of failure modes.

...typically it just goes right through you, along with all the other undigestible parts of your food, like bone fragments, egg shell fragments, bugs, dirt, rocks...

What's wrong with eating bugs?

idiot

Don't be name-calling, asshole...

Look where Belgium and the Netherlands

But not Sweden, Denmark, and Norway... And yet, their performance is rather unremarkable — matching, rather than vastly exceeding America's. Only Norway does much better than US — but it also does much better than others, so it can't be the Socialism (it is oil).

Some have, others, maybe. While Microsoft is not in Silly Valley, they do reside in near-equally-liberal SeaTac... yet technically, their corporate headquarters is in Delaware (for tax purposes). Come to think of it, so is Intel, Google, Apple... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

(note, info is a bit old, but I believe still accurate).

Don' worry, though, the latest version of Apple's iPhone will have an app to fix that! :-)

Oh no! But I choose healthcare instead. ;)

“Maybe rather than getting that new iPhone” Americans “should invest in their own healthcare” - Rep. Jason Chaffetz

Taxes are not passed onto consumers. It's ludicrous to think that happens. It could only happen if there was only one cash flow, between consumers and businesses, but that is far from true.

As to what varies. I'm talking about insurance, both cost to employee, cost to employer, coverage, etc... I've turned down a 20% pay raise because the new companies insurance would eat every penny and then some, pre-ACA.
educate yourself

I see fake news on TV all the time. The worst of the stories get retracted -- eventually. The worst fakers get fired or reassigned (Dan Rather, Brian Williams, etc.) But there is a steady stream of anonymously sourced stories, presented as "news", only to magically disappear when it becomes obvious that somebody made it up.

http://www.washingtonexaminer....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://dailycaller.com/2017/06...
http://elections.huffingtonpos...

What absolute nonsense. You think big-box stores have nothing better to do than tell record manufacturers what they need to edit out of a CD?

Are you really this stupid? They pay someone specifically to do things like that. Wal-Mart in particular makes all kinds of demands of all of its suppliers. But even better proof that you're just spewing unformed thoughts out of the wrong hole is that many albums already come in multiple flavors; a censored one for christian-friendly communities, and an uncensored one for everyone else. Wal-Mart just carries the insipid versions, because nobody ever stopped going to Wal-Mart for diapers and doritos because they didn't get to hear the word "fuck", but one misplaced expletive can have a whole squad of wrinkly white people shaking signs out front. This is not a myth, it's a well-known fact that Wal-Mart carries music under rules which interfere with freedom of expression.

Again, where have I ever advocated for eugenics?

The simple fact is that post-2000 suicide rates are very low because society has changed. And your stats are full of shit - they were from an earlier time, where transwomen faced far more assholes like you than today.

The mental health quality of life of trans women without surgical intervention was significantly lower compared to the general population, while those transwomen who received FFS, GRS, or both had mental health quality of life scores not significantly different from the general female population.

As for widespread regret? It's a lie.

Surgical regret is actually very uncommon. Virtually every modern study puts it below 4 percent, and most estimate it to be between 1 and 2 percent (Cohen-Kettenis & Pfafflin 2003, Kuiper & Cohen-Kettenis 1998, Pfafflin & Junge 1998, Smith 2005, Dhejne 2014). In some other recent longitudinal studies, none of the subjects expressed regret over medically transitioning (Krege et al. 2001, De Cuypere et al. 2006).

... and ...

Any surgery comes with a risk of regret. It just happens that the risk of regret for GCS is actually much lower than for many other surgeries. Indeed, the regret rate for GCS compares favorably with gastric banding.

When asked about regrets, only 2 percent of respondents in a survey of transgender people in the UK had major regrets regarding the physical changes they had made, compared with 65 percent of non-transgender people in the UK who have had plastic surgery.

Maybe we should ban plastic surgery to everyone except transsexuals, since clearly they're the group where the majority don't have regrets, just a tiny minority. And as the article points out, even that rate is falling with more advances in technique.

And you lied here:

Ditto for testosterone, which you've wrongfully stated makes FTM transexuals more likely to gain steady employment.

It has nothing to do with testosterone and everything to do with men's visceral negative reaction to male-to-female sex changes. We don't see anywhere near the levels of hate and negativity directed towards F2M transsexuals - even those F2M who aren't on hormones. Transmisogeny is real, and you're a prime example.

Also, as for your claiming that I'm a narcissist, my psychiatrist and psychologist disagree. And of course they're in a better position to make a valid judgement, given that they've actually examined, interviewed, and tested me. So once again, you're full of shit.

They don't need to hack bitcoin. They just need to "mine" it instead. Everyone is writing optimized SHA-256 hashing systems on everything from GPU's with CUDA to OpenCL, bitcoin mining pools. You even get custom ASIC's costing $1500 that just sit there and do bitcoin mining. Someone gets lucky and finds a valid bitcoin blockchain hash, they're $4000 richer. ASUS came out with a motherboard with 19 molex sockets so that 19 GPU cards can be plugged into the same motherboard.

Home-brew supercomputers:

https://img.huffingtonpost.com...
https://img.huffingtonpost.com...

They don't need to hack bitcoin. They just need to "mine" it instead. Everyone is writing optimized SHA-256 hashing systems on everything from GPU's with CUDA to OpenCL, bitcoin mining pools. You even get custom ASIC's costing $1500 that just sit there and do bitcoin mining. Someone gets lucky and finds a valid bitcoin blockchain hash, they're $4000 richer. ASUS came out with a motherboard with 19 molex sockets so that 19 GPU cards can be plugged into the same motherboard.

Home-brew supercomputers:

https://img.huffingtonpost.com...
https://img.huffingtonpost.com...

Did you bother to read Ted Cruz's reason? Two thirds of the money for post-Sandy aid was pork unrelated to hurricane Sandy. Such fiscal malfeasance is why the federal government should not be in the disaster recovery business.

Did you bother to fact-check Ted Cruz's reasons? Even if we accept the claim of materials unrelated to Sandy, that doesn't mean that they were pork, they could be related to other disasters of a similar nature. Or NOAA funding. Oh noes, the horrors. Making sure weather predictions are funded.

Of course, given that it was in the House, then it's Ted's own party to blame for any Pork, so go ahead, name names, why don't you?

Let's see the guilty parties identified. Ted could have done that at the time, and proposed removing those things, but he didn't.

Oh wait, Ted was just grand-standing. Well, now the roosters come home, and he's going to have to identify the pork in the bill to pass a clean one.

Oh wait, he won't?

Huh.

How about Sonia K.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/19/opinions/holocaust-survivor-trump-charlottesville-sonia-k-opinion/index.html

Or, MIchael Bornstein

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/holocaust-survivor-charlottesville-white-supremacists-are-finding-another-voice-n792461

Or, Alfred Munzer

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/dc/dc-holocaust-survivor-responds-to-trumps-remarks-on-charlottesville/464692365

Or, Jack Rosenthal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/this-holocaust-survivor-noticed-a-detail-in-charlottesville-you-might-have-missed_us_59a09bf8e4b05710aa5c3feb

Or, Erika Gold

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-cuyahoga/holocaust-survivor-responds-to-president-trumps-nazi-comments

Nope you have it backwards.

Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admit it or not.

It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.

Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.

It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.

Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.

The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...

We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.

Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.

But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.

Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.

I think both of you missed the point. The fact that the Constitution does not address privacy as a specific right does not mean privacy is not a right. From the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Nope you have it backwards.

Nope. It's the way of things. Whether you Admit it or not.

It's the Progressives who only respect a right when it benefits them.

Nope. The way it works is that Conservatives make claims about Progressives, expect us to ignore what they've said and done, and then mysteriously, expect us not to notice the rank hypocrisy that they possess themselves as they do what they want to do anyway.

It is part of their false virtues. When it comes down to it, I'd respect somebody who admitted what they were doing, rather than try to cloak it in sanctimony like Conservatives do.

Privacy is enshrined in the 4th Amendment as any US Conservative will tell you.

The 4th amendment, according to Conservatives only limits the government in its searches, providing no other protection, but you know this since...

We may admit that it's not as all encompassing a protected right as some would like.

Oh good, you admit your principles, if not as earnestly as you might have.

But it is there in our "Precious" Bill of Rights and it most certainly does exist.

Not according to Conservative thought. It isn't there at all. They wouldn't have a problem with this kind of ID, though fortunately, their own abusive acts keep losing in court.

Because people who have peanut allergies who aren't exposed to any peanuts have successfully not died from their peanut allergy 100% of the time.

So people who aren't exposed to any peanuts don't die from exposure to peanuts. That's an utter truism and says nothing about the underlying question.

BTW, if anyone tells you their kid will die at the slightest contact with something peanut, they're lying. Nobody is that allergic to peanuts. It's all in their heads.

You're a fucking idiot.

If it's really that clear-cut, why don't you skip the invective and spend a few keystrokes actually providing some evidence of documented death from casual contact with peanuts (as opposed to actually eating them)? It doesn't look particularly good for you from what I can see.

Now that censorship is cool again, can we finally make it cool to violently censor anyone who likes Che Guevera?

I'm just saying that safe spaces should be free from hateful and racist rhetoric like what Che commonly spewed:

This one's fun:
"Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred that is intransigent...hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him violent and cold- blooded killing machine...We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism rivers of blood must flow! The imperialist enemy must feel like a hunted animal wherever he moves. Thus we'll destroy him! These hyenas are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!"

Incidentally, all you have to do is put "National" in front of Socialism and it's a *LITERAL NAZI* quote. Since we've established that censoring LITERAL NAZIS is cool, I think this counts.

How about these quotes, which if said by a certain President would be "triggering" but when said by Che propelled him to SJW stardom:
The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese."

"The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations."

"The episode upset us a little because the poor man, apart from being homosexual and a first-rate bore, had been very nice to us, giving us 10 soles each, bringing our total to 479 for me and 163 1/2 to Alberto."

"The first person we hit on was the mayor, someone called Cohen; we had heard a lot about him, that he was Jewish as far as money was concerned but a good sort."

"Mexicans are a band of illiterate Indians"

Don't believe me? Try the HuffPo: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Oh and since any business that doesn't virtue-signal against Che must be actively supporting unprovoked nuclear attacks on civilians, should we be able to be violent against them too?

Oh, and since punching Nazis is OK, is it OK to punch college douches who wear Che Guevera T-shirts too?

This IS regular police work.

Yes, the police regularly seek overbroad and general warrants, in order to conduct fishing expeditions and draw a large net.

This is not news.

This is NOT a politically motivated investigation at all, but a criminal inquiry into actual crimes.

Yet we don't believe that. I wonder why.

We already have people charged in these cases and the DOJ is doing it's job like it should.

Are they now? We've already documented that the DOJ doesn't always do its job like it should. Has there been an investigation to certify that the DOJ is not misbehaving? Have the numerous complaints made about the handling of the protests been examined?

Your implication that this is a politically motivated investigation is not really valid given the evidence we have. This is not an issue of free speech, but an investigation into obvious crimes.

The crimes aren't obvious, but instead exaggerated hysteria meant to incite panic and outrage while ignoring reality. I've seen worse damage after a sports team loses.

Of course you might think that destruction of property, inciting riots, assault and conspiracy to commit these things should be allowed under the 1st Amendment, but you'd be totally wrong.

Perhaps not. The 1st amendment is rather limited in scope. They are, however, allowed, even required, under the principles of this country. Said rights, of course, being expressed in a variety of forms, and explicitly so in several state constitutions. And given that the US Constitution contains the 10th Amendment, it can hardly be said to be exhaustive in listing the rights of the people.

Given that this sentiment is long-standing, one can hardly expect it to be excluded. But I suspect that you, would instead mindlessly prefer to declare an allegiance to the law, over the rightful. That is sad.

I understand your confusion though, given the last administration's failure to deal with these kinds of crimes for obvious political reasons.

Yes, they were impeded from stopping the Bundy Ranch rioters, and the Malfeur occupiers, because it would have looked bad politically. On the other hand, they were also smart enough to recognize that.

Trump's a dumbass though, and will likely pull a Chicago Seven prosecution.

Apparently he's never cracked a history book to learn the value of conciliation.

He had a chance, he's had numerous chances. He keeps blowing them. Trumpcare. Muslim Ban. The recent events in Virginia.

Are his advisers incompetent, or does he just not listen? Perhaps both.

Seems Wells Fargo has helped out both Hillary and the Clinton Foundation.......that money has to come from somewhere, doesn't it?

"Those giving between $100,000 and $250,000, according to the Clinton Foundation list, included Washington University, the Wells Fargo Foundation (Wells Fargo Advisers is headquartered in St. Louis); and Joyce A. Aboussie, a longtime Democratic operative and adviser to former House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt, D-St. Louis."

http://www.stltoday.com/news/l...

"Wells Fargo, both the bank and its foundation, have given generously to the Clinton Foundation over the years. The bank has given between $10,001 and $25,000, and the foundation has given between $100,001 To $250,000. In 2011, former President Bill Clinton gave a speech to Wells Fargo for $200,000."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

There were a series of allegations by the Bernie campaign... one is information was being leaked by the DNC from the Bernie Campaign to Hillary. I could go get a list of these things if you want. There was a lot of shady shit about the Hillary campaign.

Stuff in this for example:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

As to her qualifications, her popularity figures, ability to speak publicly, her charisma which is relevant to people wanting to win an election, etc... none of it was very good. But whatever... run her again... maybe third time is the charm!

As to republicans restricting voting, justify that please. As to election reform, no it would not be about candidates... it is about ensuring the integrity of the ballot box. The allegation is that people are fiddling with the votes. Apparently the Dems like the "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" approach to investigation. Which is naturally the best way to accomplish nothing on reform, find nothing, and frankly facilitate any existing corruption.

But that's okay... Even if you do nothing to reform the process, some kind of light is being shown on this at least privately and there is an increasing probability that corruption will be discovered eventually... and whoever is doing it will pay an embarrassing price in elections to come. All of which could be avoided by being serious about reform... but we might get much the same simply by catching people's hand in the cookie jar.

We all know this — the "free speech" Amendment only applies to government. You must not prosecuted for calling Trump "traitor" or a policemen — "an asshole".

Though the work to abolish the Amendment is in progress, it may take a while for us to become "more like Europe".

So, in order to control, what people say — and what politics they support — the statists have invented a new trick. Instead of pursuing the individuals, they would go after employers. See, the First Amendment may protect James Damore's speech, but it does not protect Google from charges of "creating hostile work-environment".

And just what constitutes such an environment? Whatever the government says it does (somehow "gender identity" is on the list already, for example)... Sure, sure, to actually win in court, the prosecutors/lawyers need to persuade a judge and the jury. But the process is daunting and very costly — and whereas the employer has to pay their own expenses, the "attackers" are paid by the taxpayers.

It is to protect themselves from such nonsense, that employers establish these "internal policies" and set up positions like "Vice President of Diversity" in the first place. These people sincerely believe in the justice of their causes, doing the government's job for it...

By inventing "protected categories" the government gets to decide, what Americans aren't allowed to say. At least, at work — where we spend about half of our waking time. And then come Social Justice Warriors, who would gleefully pursue you even for convictions privately held...

First Amendment? Yes, sure — you still have it, but best talk in your shower, where no one can hear it and get offended.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

Not a day goes by without a conservative whining about those mean old liberals. Conservatives on /. are not any different, they just down-mod anything they don't agree with or like as a mob.

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

https://www.theatlantic.com/na...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Now, if you're trying to suggest that Obama was treated far better by the right than Trump is being treated by the left, there's really no need to continue this conversation, as you are nothing more than a brainwashed idiot who's incapable of thought.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

https://www.psychologytoday.co...

He followed data he didn't collect, or understand, to a conclusion he had already decided was right (even given the fact that the data DID NOT support that conclusion).... that's called confirmation bias. Even the person who did collect some of the data, whom the engineer posted as a source, says the engineer came to the wrong conclusion.

So, Google probably should have fired him for not being able to read and understand the written word, or maybe for being so clueless as to have absolutely no foresight in regards to the possible repercussions of his actions. Either way, conservatives have pushed "at-will employment" laws to undermine unions for 30+ years, and his firing is allowed by those.... so while he may not be whining, and just answering questions... all of these posts on /. past the first one is basically conservatives whining about a perceived slight because of their victim complex.

Obesity is a problem in Europe as well since rates have doubled. Fast food chains and sugary drinks are there as well and also expanding

... another article regarding Roundup, Monsanto, and lax oversight by US EPA...

Internal EPA Documents Show Scramble For Data On Monsanto’s Roundup Herbicide
The documents raise questions about how and why regulators for years have failed to require robust testing on what is the world’s most widely-used weed killer. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

.... did we ever get to the bottom of where Saddam Hussein hid his Weapons of Mass Destruction?

ISIS Likely Captured Iraqi Chemical Weapons, New York Times Confirms
Isis storms Saddam-era chemical weapons complex in Iraq

The jihadist group bringing terror to Iraq overran a Saddam Hussein chemical weapons complex on Thursday, gaining access to disused stores of hundreds of tonnes of potentially deadly poisons including mustard gas and sarin.

Say good night, dick.

No problem. Your english is very good. But you're missing a cultural reference/stereotype.

Here in the US, so the stereotype goes, men don't ask for directions. Asking for directions is a sign of weakness. You figure it out for yourself. There are various jokes about men refusing to ask for directions (which is why they bring women along, so they can ask for directions).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
"Why are diabetics often given inadequate -- or just plain wrong -- dietary advice?
    Much of the inadequate and dangerous advice stems from a belief that diabetic patients will not be sufficiently motivated to make the necessary lifestyle changes to heal their diabetes. The typical watered-down, nutritional guidelines are designed to merely manage blood glucose by balancing carbohydrate, fat and protein to keep medication needs consistant. These guidelines are not designed to promote long-term health or fix the problem. To achieve excellent health, it is not the ratio of carbohydrate, protein and fat that is important; it is the combination of micronutrient quantity, micronutrient variety, and staying within our caloric requirements to achieve and maintain an ideal weight.
    Many physicians are unaware or skeptical that type 2 diabetes can be reversed with superior nutrition. Other physicians agree that weight loss and high-nutrient eating can lead to diabetes reversal, but either don't know how to motivate their patients or simply doubt that their patients would be willing to make or capable of making the necessary changes. Instead, well-meaning physicians prescribe drugs to bring dangerously high glucose levels down; they want to protect their patients against complications, but the medications cause more problems. Insulin and several oral diabetes medications promote weight gain, which makes the patient even more diabetic, increasing risk for heart disease and necessitating even larger doses of medications -- the patient is caught in a never ending cycle of more and more drugs. Patients are told that medications will take care of their blood glucose.
    This reliance on medication gives patients a false sense of security and allows them to avoid personal responsibility -- exercising frequently and eating right is not a life-or-death matter when you can "just take a pill." Many patients don't realize that their health will continue to deteriorate over time, even with their somewhat more "controlled" glucose levels. Medications can't do what removing the cause of the diabetes (the standard American diet and a sedentary lifestyle) can do. I say that people with diabetes deserve to know that drugs are a poor option, because my nutritarian diet is infinitely more effective and protective which can grant them the potential to reverse their disease and live healthfully into old age. ..."

Every claim he made in the above post was true.

Nope, in fact they were quite refutable. Not only that, you do realize it was trying to defend another post, with yet more falsehoods, don't you?

If you can't see that the Republicans cleaned house this election, you are mathematically challenged.

Unlike you, I can pay attention to the data, not just make the conclusions I want to believe are true, so recognizing that turnout was down, the actual numbers were relatively close, and only the distorting effect of gerrymandering and malappoirtionment misleads certain people into thinking that there's actually a substantial gap.

The "more people voted for Clinton" argument only shows your ignorance of our election system.

The argument, in case you don't remember, was regarding the American people, thus your denial of that factor shows your ignorance of the conversation. We're not talking about the electoral system. We never were. We're talking about something else. Your defensive deflection underscores the weakness of your argument, because you are desperately trying to evade the rebuttal of the original point being made.

Either that, or you are just innocently confused and mistaken. I doubt it.

I'm sure Trump's average golf score is lower than Hillary's but if Trump lost the election you wouldn't see me bringing his golf score up. You care to know why? Because both golf scores and number of votes mean fuck all in our election.

Indeed, I don't care how he scores on the Golf Course. I do, however, care that he rushes off to the Golf Course at the cost of millions of dollars, even after proclaiming that he wouldn't do that, nosiree, he'd stay on the job.

Of course, if he had lost the election, he'd be screaming tirades to get attention, but at least it'd be on his own dime.

The only thing that matters is electoral votes and Trump is better at scooping those up.

No, that doesn't really matter in this conversation, we were actually discussing something else in this post and you're merely trying to derail the conversation since factually this defense was mistaken, as pointed out already.

Cry about the game all you want but both parties knew the rules to the game before election day. If you can't understand this, please stick to spreading cream on your sore butt hole and bugger off with the "Hillary had more votes" line.

Cry about the electoral college all you want, but the rules of that broken, flawed, system, were known to be so long before election day in 2016. In fact, you might review a little history instead of trying to emulate a certain fool who can't even admit he lost the popular vote but has to proclaim without evidence, that the election system was broken enough to allow millions of illegal votes.

Which, of course, would invalidate his election, as well as the thousands of others on that day, but do you think he thinks about that? He still lies about a landslide.

Sorry, you lost again

Intel and AMD don't realize, apparently, that allowing backdoor spyware means the eventual end of their companies.

No, they realise very well, and that there's no other competitor besides them, especially if you go down the Windows route.

Consumers have no other choice, and especially coupled with the fact very few people appear to truly care about their privacy... you only have to look at the countless Android and Google users to realise how little people (even geeks) seem to care!

* I didn't mention Apple, because they are the only major company who appear to care for the privacy of their users and fighting against Gov surveillance.

The enduring contribution of Bitcoin appears to be the blockchain idea, which is being tested in a number of applications the Bitcoin developers never envisioned:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
These would enable such things as personal identity to be managed without a central authority.

The BTC split subjects Bitcoin users to an involuntary A/B test of a change to the original blockchain that could support faster transaction processing. Let's see whether the winner is A, B, or none of the above.

OTA TV has gone through something of a resurgence after the switchover to digital. There are way more channels on the air today then there were 10 years ago. This happened at the same time cable started raising their prices unsustainably so people are coming back and finding all sorts of channels that they would actually watch. Combine this with inexpensive online streaming options and Cable's $70+ monthly price point is a bad joke.

In my area we have all of the big networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, CW, 7 PBS channels), plus Cozi, MeTV, Charge, Comet, TBI, Bounce, Justice, GetTV, Grit, Escape, MyTV, Movies, HgI, Retro, ion, ThisTV, and a ton of foreign channels. The only things I'm missing even a little are FX and AMC.

DHS has a stellar record of protecting us from our property through at-home deep searches. Whoever doesn't like this new in-airport enhanced screening is probably a terrorist.

More important question, are men with lower sperm counts more of less happy than men with higher sperm counts.

Weogh! That was a hard to parse as a Sarah Palin speech, so I'll just hit on the basics.

Your noting that a lot of men avoiding having children is part of another trend Men are becoming less interested in marriage, and oddly, women are becoming more interested than a few years back. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... And given some other trends, the numbers might decrease yet more. Certainly given that college campuses are trending a 10 percent gape between female and male and growing, http://www.pewresearch.org/fac... there wil be a lot of educated women - who probably do not want to marry lesser educated men - who are going to have an issue with marriage and reproducing.

There might be some relationship between lower testosterone levels and men dropping out of society and marriage and children - I don't know enough to make that presumption. Generally when you ask those men who choose to opt out, thier ansers tend to be that marriage and relationships are just not a good deal for men. They do make an argument that is fairly convincing and rational. But once we get into social matters it is hard to get definitive causes and effects.

Leftists like the Koch Family Foundation[1][2]? And the Donald J. Trump Foundation[3]

Twitler needs someone to buy some more paintings of himself and pay for his attorney fees related to his crooked business dealings.

Yep, please do break them up.

[1] http://kochfamilyfoundations.o...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

And somebody has it worse: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

He had a busy day but lots of fun playing in a fire truck and wearing a cowboy hat.

[A] sedentary culture and studies show all that sitting is taking a major toll on employee health.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

This reminds me of a satirical piece by Mark Boslough about the Alabama state legislature wanting to change the value of Pi from the irational value of 3.14159... to the simplier biblical value of 3.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

And of course, not to mention back in 1897, when the Indiana state legislature seriously considered defining Pi to 3.2.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

This is especially interesting considering that the seeds for the Brainpool elliptic curve domain parameters, used for crypto especially in European passports and government ID cards, were defined over values from "Pi" & "e".

http://www.ecc-brainpool.org/d...
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rf...

Maybe Australia will ban Europeans with their unbreakable crypto in their passports from visiting?

The smashing, violence, and beatings is overwhelmingly coming from the left. That's how it's been for many years.

I have to agree.

So you feel obligated to agree with a falsehood? Interesting. Why not challenge it? Why not consider how the FBI's report on right-wing violence was suppressed?

My personal theory is that many of the violent people have convinced themselves that their political enemies are in fact bad people and "fair game" for anything.

Yes, the right goes out of its way to declare that people on the left are, in fact, bad people, and see themselves as the martyred heroes for saving themselves from the dastardly villains. That was, in fact, the whole justification of Nazi aggression.

Ever so slightly interesting that you don't mention it.

But it's hardly unknown, it's even in this movie trailer.

It goes like this: It's okay to punch a Nazi; conservatives are all Nazis... and then comes the punching.

Actually, it's conservatives who go to tortuous lengths to declare that liberals are Nazis. It's terribly amusing, and rather pathetic. Not to mention the Muslim accusations, the Communist accusations, and more.

Of course, it turns out the people dumb enough to sell out to the Russians were Trumps, but we can't be paying attention to that.

Here is a web page linking multiple articles arguing that the violence used to prevent Milo Yiannopolous from speaking at Berkeley was justified. "Violence helped ensure safety of students" is a real headline. There was also this quote: "...some white nationalists got their ***** beat." (Just like the Nazi thing above, only this time using "white nationalist". Someone who wanted to hear Milo speak --> white nationalist --> someone it's okay to send to the hospital.)

Here's a video of those white Nationalists's major work:

http://www.pbs.org/video/2365957904/

Do see how they're behaving and justifying themselves.

Even the removal of statues leads to threats of violence.

Some people can't even worship in peace.

Yet you show not the slightest concern about that.

Also, the media coverage may tend to embolden these people. The people who smash things, light things on fire, and send people to the hospital are described as "protesters". The people who wanted to hear Milo speak are described as "alt-Right extremists". I don't want to overstate the contribution of the media but I think it's a part.

The media coverage of the feigned victimization of right-wing speakers was indeed a part, people actually started to believe it was a real problem, or some sudden development, until it petered out, as comments by Milo that even the right-wing couldn't stomach came out, and he, the poster-child for the supposed martydom, became a persona non-grata. So it petered out.

Personally I think that the correct remedy for bad speech is counter-speech.

So not walking away? Not ignoring them? You don't say they're unacceptable, but why not correct?

But ok, enjoy my speech.

Violence isn't acceptable to prevent speech, even if you really disagree.

So is h

Just like every other company that does it. I'm looking at you Big Oil.

And don't think I don't see you too Monsanto

We make fun of Rick Perry because he is an idiot in the GWB sense. He barely got his degree and was known for his cheerleading. And now he's the current Secretary of Energy.

Link to a copy of his transcript here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/rick-perry-college-transcript_n_919357.html

Is it safe to assume that you would also support making all forms of alcohol illegal too? Considering the CDC reports that: alcohol abuse is the third highest cause of death in the U.S. I just want to make sure that your suggestion is fair to all forms of dangerous substances, and not just singling out smoking because you don't smoke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

How about zoning for some apartment buildings? The citizens will fight tooth and nail against it, but if you want affordable housing, that's what you build.

Yeah, nobody ever heard of expensive luxury apartments.

Or affordable Suburban homes.

No, your solution is flawed.

As a Christian engineer, I would love to see reading, writing, math, hard science, logic and debate taught early on, rather than indoctrination on evolution. (19% of current HS graduates are essentially illiterate, but we make sure to shove garbage theories like evolution down their throats). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

If the students learn logic and debate, then they can learn about irreducible complexity, the correct application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics (how in non-living nature it applies to every system at any level, and only with living, intelligent intervention can we create pockets of higher order/energy).

They can debate logically how evolution has never been observed in a lab experiment, and it is basically the old, debunked theory of spontaneous generation (rock soup became alive) with the added ingredient of "millions or billions of years" which conveniently puts it out of reach of our ability to duplicate scientifically (at which point it becomes a belief /theory only and not science, no matter how hard the left screams that it is). If it ever is duplicated in the lab, that will in and of it'self prove that it takes intelligence to create life... Though somehow many evolutionists cant figure out that they are in fact an intelligent being.

The students can stack all that and many other problems with evolution against the evidence of intelligent design by an all powerful, extra dimensional being who has revealed Himself to literally millions of people in very public ways throughout history, people who wrote down their experiences and were then willing to die for what they had observed.

In the court of logic and debate and historical evidence, evolution doesn't stand a chance.

it is technically possible

Of course it is. There's been a patent on it for years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...