Slashdot Mirror

Nice revisionist history. China had Most Favored Nation status well before Clinton was even president.
http://articles.latimes.com/19...

And Bush Jr. followed in Daddy's footsteps by making China's MFN status permanent:
https://georgewbush-whitehouse...

Not to mention Sharper Image lost court cases about fraudulent claims.

http://www.latimes.com/health/...

Alaska, Sweden, Russia, win in a warmer climate.

If the thermohaline cycle stops, Europe turns into Canada, and Sweden and Russia will be in serious danger of turning into Greenland. Not a "win".

Similarly, if the California Current slows or stops, Alaska and B.C. Canada will get far colder, while Washington, Oregon and Northern California warms up.

It's an open question whether California will get less or more rainfall from warming.

Ah, so if the grant total of other administrative expenses for a drug company (of which your article freely admits that marketing is only a part, and tellingly doesn't even attempt to quantify how much) are more than R&D, and if you cherry-pick a single year such that it obfuscates the cyclic nature of R&D (where R&D for a given drug will be separated from marketing expenses and profits for that drug by many years), then R&D doesn't cost much of anything and thus need not really impact the sales price of a drug. Got it. I really want to think you would be a bit more attuned to this kind of shoddy analysis and faulty logic if its conclusion wasn't what you already obviously want to believe.

And it's also interesting that after you painted yourself into a corner on the original topic -- that the U.S. can't arbitrarily slash its pricing structure for drugs without adversely affecting the overall drug landscape, both for itself and others -- you've jumped to another lilypad and are now embracing a fundamental change to that landscape, arguing to put the entire pharmaceutical industry under state control (employing, dare I say, banal socialist propaganda?). I guess that's fine as long as you don't mind new, useful drugs -- and maybe even sufficient quantities of existing drugs -- becoming roughly as available as health care for veterans or eggs in Venezuela. Party on, comrade.

BS. They lobby for enforcing existing firearm laws all the time. But hey, when you have high-profile anti-gun Democrats running guns, maybe they don't WANT to reduce gun crimes and enforce existing laws... There's money and power to be made by letting CRIMINALS (yes, committing fraud on a 4473 is a felony) stay on the street.

The NRA pushes to enforce existing laws; what good is accomplished by passing new laws if you choose to not enforce existing ones? You had 43,000 CONVICTED FELONS trying to ILLEGALLY PURCHASE firearms, and the Federal Government just ingored it. Slam-dunk convictions - signed statements of fraud, documented. You know where they live. And yet - don't enforce. Why not? What good will new laws do?

Enforce the existing laws first (or repeal them if you're not going to enforce them) and then we can talk...

Don't forget, DPRK state media has endorsed Donald J. Trump for president (this is not a joke).

And the KKK Grand Wizard involved in this violent incident has endorsed Hillary Clinton.

So what?

Which way are you going to break? Trump is no Che, but he does have the endorsement of international "Progressives." Shall we be putting you down as +1 Trump?

I'm a little surprised to see liberal slashdot job raise on their shoulders the post of someone who claims job losses are good.

I doubt Hillary would make that claim in the debates, because I think that would be a tough sell. As much as I would never vote for her, I give her points for being shrewd as I aspire to be.

Luddites and Marxists have traditionally tried to sell us on how income equality will somehow create jobs. Perhaps this is a Millennial adaptation to a generation that has lost interest in working. I see the same posture in the White House's response to the ACA job losses as a benefit because people are being "liberated" from the hardship of working. It sort of puts the abortion argument (that it dignifies people with the ability to work) on its head, not that that was really ever a genuine intention.

Setting aside my personal reluctance to get fired, a big problem is the task of sustaining all this. What if everyone stops working? Great that we are all more fit (not quite convinced on that, but stranger things have happened), but who is going to make the stuff we want and provide the stuff we need?

To answer this question with the news has anyone seen the cost for a dozen eggs in Venezuela is now $150?

http://www.latimes.com/world/m...

Right, I know it's the right wing rag, the LA Times.

Eggs cost that much there because people can now just live off the government and no one wants to be bothered with the trouble of keeping chickens and harvesting their eggs. Keep in mind Chavez died with $2 billion -so much for the desire to redistribute money to other people (unless you are describing a way for the government to redistribute to themselves).

So I am going to go out on a limb and say unless the job is thievery or prostitution (portrayed as pioneers of sharing), the government shouldn't be trying to stop it.

but later retracted the trademark application. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

Maybe, but I thought Trump looked very presidential when he was on Russian TV criticizing America and praising Vladimir Putin.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

is partially anonymize their customers so that it was difficult or impossible to determine an applicant's race from his application

Anonymity will not help — there are very few obviously Black names. They need to disable photos — which were denounced as a major instrument of racism for almost a century already. But that would mean removal of an important feature of the system by making it impersonal...

My personal opinion is that while racism is regrettable, its impact is overrated and far less damaging than any heavy-handed (and freedom-trampling) efforts to fight it. Jews, for example, were targets of racism in Europe for centuries. And I mean real racism — the pogroms were far more tangible, than anything Blacks suffer from in the US today. Similarly to Blacks, Asians were victims of racism in the US since building the railroads (I just watched the Bruce Lee movie).

Yet, neither the Jews nor the Asians today need to explain their under-performance in our "White society" by the racism — because they perform better than the supposed tormentors. So much better, Asian college-applicants are advised to not answer the "Race" question on their applications — to avoid the penalty college boards impose on Asians in the name of "equality". Being presumed White instead of Asian is estimated to be an equivalent to extra 50 SAT-points...

50 years ago we surrendered certain freedoms to the promise of racial harmony. The harmony remains as elusive as ever, but the freedoms continue withering away...

They spend (at most) 10% of the foundations huge cash flow on actual charities/causes. The rest is all "administrative" fees and costs, including large salaries for cronies who "consult" with the foundation, and a huge parade of paid-for amenities for the the foundation's star attractions: Bill, Hillary, and their daughter. Do you really think that one dollar out of ten spent on "causes" is the sign of a proper charitable foundation? It means they are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent - just like everything else they run.

Do you think your numbers are accurate? Or perhaps you can explain why other examinations don't agree with your conclusions. Surely you can show your own numbers are more valid than independent examinations. If not, it means you are either corrupt, or incredibly incompetent.

The real truth is, you have zero credibility when it comes to talking about the Clintons. And it's your own fault. You've been too hysterical and partisan, you could witness an actual homicide, and the jury would laugh when you took the stand.

No, they were willing to spend big bucks because it gets them access to the Secretary of State, where they had other business pending. Do you REALLY think that some brokerage in NY is handing Hillary Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for a closed-door, in-house-only appearance lasting under 30 minutes, with everyone involved signing non disclosure agreements so that the press can never learn what it was she said that was worth making her rich? Are you even listening to yourself?

Hey, if you want to lock up former Presidents, stop handing out pardons.

Propose a law that the President and their spouse has to live on a stipend, in a confined chamber, where they pray for America, then I'll believe you give a crap.

Oh, and there is a fault line that IS active in Hawthorne, and is capable of a 7.0 quake. It's just a matter of time. But that's OK, you PERSONALLY have never experienced it so you're all safe, right?

Not only have the insurance companies already signed off on the re-used rocket, they've insured it at a similar price to first-use rockets:
"There also was “no material change” in the insurance rate compared to using a new Falcon 9 rocket, indicating insurers’ confidence in the launch vehicle, Halliwell said."
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

It's very likely the used rockets will have micro fractures everywhere that are nearly impossible to find.

This was not the reused booster stage. That was scheduled to launch later this year.

If the money is made good use of in the process then it's win-win. Who says you have to be self-sacrificing to help others?

The problem is that the money is being used to do evil. Gates is investing in businesses which are killing the people he's claiming to be helping. As it turns out, you do have to be self-sacrificing to help others.

You keep posting this same link like it is some horrible smoking gun, but all the article says is that the investments of the Gates Foundation don't follow the same principles of the charitable works the foundation does. That is disappointing, but hardly counts as killing people. Or at least, if that is killing people, anyone with investments in S&P index funds is equally culpable.

The Gates foundation directly spends billions on philanthropic causes that are widely agreed to be legitimate and useful. It also invests in companies that are polluters or have unsavory business practices. Gates has put a ton of money into childhood vaccinations and in developing treatments for diseases where there is no money to be made. How many other charitable goals are they required to sign on to?

It's 90 billion USD in assets, most of them are "at work".

Yes, at work killing people. Note the age of this story; nothing has changed. How many people have been killed by Gates' investments to date? How much damage has that money done to the ecosphere?

If the money is made good use of in the process then it's win-win. Who says you have to be self-sacrificing to help others?

The problem is that the money is being used to do evil. Gates is investing in businesses which are killing the people he's claiming to be helping. As it turns out, you do have to be self-sacrificing to help others.

That said, he is giving away a lot of his cash.

Bill Gates is not giving away money. He is spending it. He claims to be spending it on humanitarian aid, but he really isn't. He's spending it to disrupt education, he's spending it to spread strong IP law. He's spending it, ironically, to make more of it; the foundation is invested in profitable businesses which are literally killing people . After that story broke the foundation announced that it would review the ethics of its investments, then un-announced that (took the announcement down from their PR page) and put up a new announcement saying that they wouldn't do that because it would be hard. The Gates Foundation is first and foremost a tax dodge, and second a way to get strong IP protection in developing nations for Big Pharma (in which Gates is massively personally invested.)

Gosh, could it be that we want to take advantage of our good mood and get some shit done while it lasts? What is with this complete lack of self-awareness here? Humans are constant pleasure-seekers? Wow, that's news to the billions of humans worldwide whose horizons don't include lush grants to produce studies. "We sabotage our own high spirits"? Again, a big WTF here. Who feels bad after cleaning the house? Put this in the bin with the rest of debunked, discredited social science. I bet the results are irreproducible and thus not science at all.

Not in California.

Unions are carving out Minimum Wage exemptions for their members, meaning they can be paid under the prevailing min. wage if the contract says so.

This will likely benefit the Unions with more memberships as business negotiate a lower wage and let the union in, but it screws the workers over.

http://www.latimes.com/local/c...

That may be the main point, but that's not how it's being used. Why else would the H-1B lottery be dominated by contract labor companies like Infosys and Tata?

I give you General Motors, bailed out at a final cost of $10.6 billion to the US taxpayers. Assuming you're one of the 69 million with a tax return above $3000/month, how did you like paying $140 to save General Motors?

Absolutely! I can't wait for my kids to get to experience having to stay indoors during lunch and recess because it's another smog alert day like I got to experience growing up. Or the streetlights in LA being on all day because it is so smoggy that the sensors think it's night like my grandparents got to experience. Maybe if we're lucky we can get some of those screens that the Chinese have that show everyone what a sunrise looks like. These EPA regulations are obviously just a bunch of crap designed to hurt the large multinational corporations!

"modern" long wavelength radar?

Here's an article a quick Google search brought up about the F-117 and British radar... from the Los Angeles Times... from 1991. http://articles.latimes.com/19... - and this was using radar considered then to be obsolete, having been "new" in the 1970s. Basically, during Gulf War One, British warships were detecting the location of these stealth fighters at about 40 miles away. From 40 miles out, it is enough time to get your fighter planes in the air to combat the stealth planes. L-band radar may not be precise enough for anti-aircraft weapons on the ground but in combination with air-to-air combat it is good enough - your response just needs to be super fast.

Those of us old enough to remember when Usenet was a critical online resource will remember when anon.penet.fi provided a helpful, pseudonymous email and NNTP service. It was invaluable for people discussing issues that were not work safe, ranging from dating services to gender identity to cancer fears to AIDS help to thoughts of suicide. Some typical coverage was done by Wired, quoting the Observer newspaper, at:

        http://www.wired.com/1996/11/a...

What was amazing about most of the press reports at the time was how they failed to identify the incident that caused Julf Helsingius to shut down anon.penet.fi. The incident is better described at:

      http://articles.latimes.com/19...

Simply put, someone kept using anon.penet.fi to post court documents revealing Scientology's inner secrets. The documents are infamous and broadly available online, but 20 years ago they were not so broadly avaialble.

Why do I mention this? Partly because it points out that anonymous, and pseudonymous services, are always at risk from court ordered revelations about their clients. And I mention it partly because it's vital to see press coverage about the events as possibly skewed by fears of retaliation by powerful groups. 20 years ago, man reporters were justifiably _frightened_ of covering Scientology stories. They remembered what had happened to Paulette Cooper, who wrote about them and had bomb threats faked in her name by the cult. Today, press coverage that risks the ire of Fox News or of the Department of Homeland Security or run afoul of the so-called Patriot Act are at similar risks of abusive, extra-judicial censorship with little safe recourse.,

I'm afraid the desire to censor communications is always around. I do look forward to better details about what triggered the closing of GhostMail's free services. I hope it wasn't a similar abuse of authority, but see real reasons to be concerned that it _is_ about Patriot Act or other government enforced tracking of users.

CC fraud in the US is more likely an inside job. We should be very suspicious of all these stories about hacks and breaches into their systems and so-called "stolen" money, such things make very effective electronic "drop points". They leave the door open and tell the cops someone came and stole all your shit. Every little glitch, "Oops, so sorry, your balance has been corrected. By the way, we are raising our fees a bit to cover our new 'anti-fraud' features." We know the nature of their business.

It's time for the Post Office to get back into it..

One human was at fault for failing to yield to oncoming traffic.

100% Wrong. The truck was completely in the right. The road was completely clear of traffic when the truck made its turn. The moron in the lemon was speeding.

Both Tesla and Space X have enormous subsidies.

That article is a hit piece likely paid for by oil and auto interests. The article claims for instance that Tesla will receive a $1.29 billion dollar subsidy from Nevada for building the Giga-Factory. What Tesla was actually promised was a 1.3% break on the state sales tax. To cap the discount, the state said that the maximum total tax break over TWENTY YEARS could not exceed $1.29 billion dollars. Tesla would have to spend $100 billion dollars over 20 years to reach that; the article makes it seem like Tesla received a cheque for $1.29 billion, which is false. Amongst other distortions, they included a DOE loan that Tesla had already paid in full. All in all, this article demonstrates much of what is wrong with the American economic system today, where corrupt billionaires use subterfuge and distortion to try to crush anyone who might begin to erode their monopolies. This is not free-market capitalism. It makes all of us less well off.

Both Tesla and Space X have enormous subsidies.

There's a reason 401ks were introduced, they are far superior and allow you to control your own retirement money.

401k is the biggest failure in US economic history.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...

https://www.newsmax.com/Financ...

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

The vast majority of people with 401k plans will not have nearly enough money to retire by age 70. The entire 401k law has been nothing but another way to siphon working and middle class wealth to rich people.

http://www.latimes.com/politic...

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

Let's see how I do...

Murder: In the US, there is the 2nd amendment right, enshrined in the Constitution, which gives everyone the right to own a gun (or, indeed, as many guns as they can buy). It's fair, everyone can have guns, even people who mow down defenseless children by the dozen. It's what the NRA wants.

Mobs: Admittedly, that is a problem, mobs generally don't behave rationally. Though most protests start out aimed at government groups or companies that are damaging their rights, rather than singling out and murdering individuals for perceived slights against a book they've read.

Torture: This, too, is a toughie. It was (is?) a program by the Bush administration and CIA to extract information from suspected terrorists. While morally and legally wrong, they at least tried to limit it to people who may have performed real world actions, rather than supernatural powers. If the witch floats, she's a witch, and if the witch drowns, she wasn't a witch?

Unsafe water: According to the Republican leaders, the EPA is in the way of business, so they've spent long years bleeding the EPA of ability to enforce the law, issue warnings and hold people accountable. That is a problem.

Corruption: Yep, the financial system is broken. Yep, the police are rarely held responsible for murdering people, destroying evidence, lying, et cetera.

Candidates: Our choices are horrible. We have a crazy, erratic liar who says whatever thought pops into his head and a consistent liar who is desperate to say whatever she thinks people want to hear as our only choices. But, at least neither of them have been implicated in the mass murder of thousands of their own constituents.

All in all, shitty as both places can be, the reality is still that a much better, safer life is still possible in the USA. Maybe not for long, but at least for your lifetime, maybe.

Ha ha, that's rich.

Consider the USA very carefully:

You have killings.
Mobs.
Torture.
Unsafe water.
Corruption.
And at least one of your presidential nominees is a Total Nutjob!

So what's wrong with India exactly?

I just assumed those pies were full of wood pulp (cellulose) filler like pretty much every cheap food, such as wal-mart's melt-resistant ice-cream bars and taco bell.

So which pie bakery makes those mini-pies?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, pal - or did you forget how the left wing was blaming the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on "tea party rhetoric"? If the left wing can do it, what makes you think the Right won't learn from their playbook?

I'll see your few scholarly research papers, and raise you several violent protests that you have missed. Even leftists have to worry about leftists, as I stated.

Further, I can show that leftist people and groups support the protests.

Well, one way to reply to a post calling out confirmation bias ... is to double down on the confirmation bias.

You have a funny term to refer to what would properly be labeled as 'observation of leftists, on social media and in real life'.

Apparently I get to represent all liberals now

Only if you are unable to parse my phrase, "Should I follow suit, ...", which limits the following phrase to a hypothetical question. But I guess such subtlety is wasted on leftists. (See, that is using your inability to read to claim all leftists are ignorant as well.)

(or at least the ones you don't like, with that bit of no-true-scotsman mixed in under cover of "I didn't mean everybody").

I'm not allowed to clarify my point that you have such a hard time understanding? Considering my original post was simply comparing attitudes and actions of nondescript left-wingers and right-wingers in the post I replied to. Since I wasn't the one who established the general groups under discussion, I certainly feel I have the right to make that clarification. Sorry if that upsets you.

Let's get back to your original claim, which can be distilled to 'liberals conform more than conservatives'.

Oh, wait a minute. I begin to see your problem. After writing all that above, I realize upon re-reading this line, that you simply are trying to argue the wrong claim. You think it is a discussion of whether one group or the other conforms to the expected norm. But that wasn't Ungrounded Lightning's argument, nor mine. UL said that those on the left "apply social pressure to each other to conform", and in response to (I assume) your question about right-wingers, I voiced my support of UL's argument, and provided an example.

I stand by my claim that leftists do much more to force their views on society, even on other leftists, than rightists do. That has nothing to do with whether right-wingers (AKA conservatives) by their nature want to keep things the way they are (also known as 'to conserve', funny how that is implied in the label 'conservative').

You are arguing the wrong case.

You are not allowed to purchase nukes, land mines or tanks.

Um, you can buy the third: http://www.latimes.com/nation/...

Why this arbitrary limit?

Alas we have lots of arbitrary limits. Why .08 BAC? Some people are impaired at .02, others are perfectly sound at .15.

Did you know fully automatic weapons are legal for civilians to buy... despite being heavily regulated since 1934. Granted anything you buy (limited really only by your pocketbook) will have to have been built prior to 1986 thanks to another arbitrary limit.

How many people killed rapidly is the limit before you enforce a ban on a weapon?

You mean handguns? The type of firearm which kills more people in this country than any other class? Oddly I don't see serious efforts to ban them, only the so called 'assault weapons' despite millions in circulation and them being a blip on the count of people killed by them.

You can't be at the complete extreme if you want civilization to continue, you need to break your ideals as well.

Still waiting for a 'common sense' solution that doesn't unduly infringe on the liberties of other people or restrict due process... no doubt you will be the rational person who offers such a suggestion.

...while a killer from the US will never be extradited to outside.

Where do people come up with this shit? Let me point to...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09...
http://articles.latimes.com/19...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2...
http://freedomoutpost.com/us-c...

Chinese cheat. Period. Ex-Soviets and formerly-Cubans do too. No, this is not "racism" — the trait is not genetic, it is cultural. When you are dealing with the abusive State for most of the things, cheating is the only way to have a reasonably comfortable life. It is not considered wrong or dishonest — everybody does it.

Western world weren't cheating quite so much not because they are racially superior somehow, but simply because they don't interact with the State as much as victims of Socialism/Communism are forced to.

It is coming to America as well — and not just with the immigrants, but with the "natives" too, because the State (comparably abusive in all countries) is increasingly in charge of various aspects of our lives. From tax-evaders, to highway speeders swearing they "didn't do it", to "workman's compensation" false claims, to Medicare fraud — cheating the government and the fugly bureaucrats who represent it is Ok.

And then you forget to stop and cheat even the business partners... Consider it PTSD — with Socialism being the trauma.

The federal government is preparing to bring down the hammer on one of these toothless watchdogs. Its target is the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, which is renowned for maintaining its accreditation of Corinthian Colleges right up to the day that chain of for-profit schools ceased operating in April 2015. Corinthian filed for bankruptcy days later. ACICS accredits some 900 campuses across the nation, giving those schools the formal imprimatur that allows them to collect an estimated $5 billion a year in federal financial aid on behalf of their students.

But its role may be ending. The Department of Education staff on Wednesday recommended the revocation of ACICS's recognition as an accreditation body. That means that schools bearing its seal of approval will have to find a new accreditation body within 18 months or lose their right to collect federal financial aid payments.

The stakes right now are "only" financial, concerning to student loans. When the scope becomes international and the stakes include a green card it will be much hard to prevent this kind of scheme.

Done right anything is possible but human nature in this particular case will be drawn by greed and greed will rapidly pervert the whole process.

Actually, if don't want to relieve yourself on the sidewalk, San Francisco has open-air urinals now... Please keep up with the times ;^p

http://www.latimes.com/busines...

i'd prefer slight economic damage to them deciding for me what i can and cannot see.

We used to call it popcorn. In our area you could dial 767-any4digits and get the time.

http://articles.latimes.com/20...

The only one with a gun inside was the shooter until the police entered the building a couple of hours later.

Wrongo! Check your facts.

Now I'm not saying that having a bunch of drinking folks carrying guns is a good idea, but I am saying that a couple of armed individuals inside the club would have a good chance of disrupting the carnage and lowering the death toll. However, we will never know the answer to all these "what if" questions.

Well, let's see, we have examples of armed peoople shooting up bars and restaurants when gathered, so we can know that there are problems with that solution. We can also see that this club had security, armed security.

Maybe instead of guns, a solution would be to control the entrances better, or to have more exits.

But we DO know that putting guns into law abiding hands LOWERS violent crime rates (such as shootings) not the other way around. The statistics don't lie, and they tell a totally different story than what you think, especially if you tend to be on the left side politically.

What? Statistics lie all the time. So do claims about them. Even assuming your allegations are valid (and with the Kleck numbers, no we can't), it is entirely possible to come to the wrong conclusion, or for outcomes to change.

Stop thinking you know anything. All that arrogant "We know" from people gets annoying. No, you do not have superior reasoning or intelligence, and believing you do causes more problems.

We also know that mass shooters seek out gun free zones to ply their trade.

They seek out places where people are gathered, they want to kill a lot of people at once, we don't want people with guns in those places because of the risk of what they would do.

This applies even more with drinking.

According to his diary, Adam Landza passed up shooting up the Denver airport and instead decided on a movie theatre which explicitly prohibited guns because he understood it was unlikely he'd encounter armed resistance and could kill more people.

Ahem? Adam Lanza was in Connecticut, you may be thinking about James Holmes.

You really should be a bit more careful to check your facts.

So, let's be honest, you need to disarm the bad guys, not the good guys. Suggest laws that do that for a change and I'll bet you find there is a lot of support for your suggestions...

No, you won't. Even attempts to find out how bad guys get guns, which had inconsequential impact on the total firearms said bad guys had, are treated as if it was a deliberate attempt to illegally arm them by the Obama administration. In reality, of course, the program, was legal and began under the prior administration. Instead it became a political football.

Just like any number of proposals.

However, this "assault weapon" ban garbage or the attack on the AR-15 in particular is a non-starter as is most of the "gun control" legislation coming from the lefties.

Actually, everything is a non-starter, can't even have a conversation thanks to sneering and condescending attitudes like this.

But I'm beginning to think that this is really about political posturing and not really about doing anything, it's about blaming the other side for saying "no" to them on a topic that garners them emotional support from the sob stories, and not anything else...

Beginning to think? You're late to the party. One side s

More than you might think. The FBI does stings all the time and arrests people who want to commit domestic terrorism. I'm pretty sure that some of this has been found by exactly what you bitch about.

You may have a point, but I'm not convinced. As the AC who also responded to your post pointed out, the TLA's would be expected to publicize their successes at thwarting terrorism, yet we hear almost nothing. If you have citations, please provide them.

The recent Orlando attacker didn't drive to the front gate of a US military facility in Florida and start opening fire. He went to a nightclub he was known to visit because he knew that the odds were high that nobody there would have a weapon that could stop him. Terrorists want easy targets with just about 100% chance of success. They're not looking for difficult targets where they may get stopped or caught.

Let me give you some help with this. If you're going to choose a specific incident to make your case, it would be better to choose one in which the perpetrator very clearly chose his target for its easy accessibility and vulnerability, and not because he might very well have been conflicted about his own sexual orientation.

There is a Fight Club joke in here somewhere, but I haven't the heart to find it. Poor man. "'Star Trek' actor Anton Yelchin's SUV was recalled in April over rollaway risk" http://www.latimes.com/local/l...

THIS. Manual transmission cars, when parked, should be parked as follows:
1 - Emergency brake engaged
2 - Shifted into a gear opposite the slope (typically 1st gear when parked forward in garage or driveway)
3 - Tires turned towards nearest curb or structure (to minimize momentum in the event of the failure of the first two)
Every time.

Another poster referenced this - http://www.latimes.com/enterta...

You will notice that the actor appears to have failed to perform all three of these items, where it is likely that any one of them would have saved his life. Its a common mistake, and I've made his same mistake on multiple occasions. On multiple occasions I have had one or more of these items fail (especially E-Brake on steep hill and older car). Consider this a PSA.

I'm guessing this is the place:
https://www.google.com/maps/pl...

Security fence and what not as mentioned some articles. Looks like the drive sloped down away from the mailbox when rotating around using google earth 3D.

The article is slightly wrong and the brick pillar is the one on the other side, without the mailbox. If you look at it from this angle:
https://www.google.com/maps/@3...

There's a different story here where you can tell it's the corner towards the house. It slopes down in both directions, fence on two sides, brick pillar in the corner, car comes rolling down the driveway, seems like a tough spot to get out of because you got nowhere to go.

Have you not been following the news?
http://www.latimes.com/busines...

Well, I should not have been so smart-alecky and explained what I meant.
The Samsung ruling was issued by the USITC (United States International Trade Commission).
USITC is not a court, it is a federal agency. The Obama administration did not "veto" a court ruling, it overturned the USITC's ruling.

Although many articles used the word "veto", that is using a very loose definition of the word in a way that isn't appropriate when talking about the Executive branch's powers.

From a non-paywalled article:
http://articles.latimes.com/20...

"Froman emphasized in his letter that he was not making a decision about the merits of Samsung's case, or its right to seek compensation. Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy."

In other words, Samsung was free to seek redress in the courts for money or an injunction, but the Obama administration was not going to let Samsung use a Federal agency to do an end-run around the Judicial system.