Slashdot Mirror

Keep in mind that usually writers are committing to a show for a whole season at a time. The writers are expected to show up to an office and write and have writer's meetings and table readings and rewrites. The writing is very collaborative especially if the show has a season arc and continuity.

So if the writer used to get $10,000 per episode + 0.01% residuals for helping write a 22 episode season which they spent 7 months working on 9-5 plus occasional overtime. And now they get $10,000 per episode + 0.01% residuals for helping write a 13 episode season which they spent 7 months working on 9-5 plus occasional overtime. Obviously they are getting paid less for the same amount of work. And most people think that the quality of most scripted TV shows has gone up in the past 20 years.

So what the writers are asking for is more money per episode. They would also like more flexibility in the work schedules. I have heard that they often have non-compete clauses in their contracts, so they cannot write for another show while they are are currently working on a season. http://www.npr.org/2017/04/19/524751648/netflix-and-cord-cutting-era-complicates-writers-guild-contract-talks

A few more nightclub dress codes:

http://media.npr.org/assets/im...

No athletic wear, baggy clothing, and chains.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/...

No athletic wear, du rags, bandanas, baggy clothing, or ball caps.

https://thesocietypages.org/so...

No athletic wear, sideways backwards baseball caps, baggy clothing, doo rags.

http://www.afro.com/wp-content...

Baggy clothing, flat bill hats, chains, athletic apparrel.

Many of the dress codes prohibit "work boots", which is because a lot of black people like wearing Timberlands.

So he did nothing?

Read more carefully:

he has done little to nothing of what he said he was going to do, none of it in any way close to exactly how he said he was going to do it, and everything he has done, he has compulsively lied about due to his tendency for braggadocio and irresponsibility.

Pretty much says he has done things, but failed to do it as he said he would, and lied about it.

If I had wanted to say he had done nothing, I could have said that, but no, I merely stated he had done little to nothing, and none of it was exactly how he said he was going to do it, and I certainly wouldn't have said that he has lied about everything he has done if he had nothing.

Stopped chemical weapons being used in Syria

Lied about stopping Chemical weapons being used in Syria, lied about his wasteful airstrike on an airport that was back in operation almost immediately, and certainly did not fulfill his promises on it. In reality, the Syrian Civil War is still a humanitarian crisis, and the use of Chemical weapons, no matter how deplorable they are, is only a small fraction of the tragedy.

And of course, Trump claimed he would solve the problem, which he hasn't, making his failure a lie. That he had previously denounced such missile strikes as he ordered as theater only harms your defense of him.

Increased S&P 500 by 5% (Real money gained by middle class)

Not directly attributed to anything he did, so...huh Thanks for showing the braggadocio though...the trend was already up and really, trying to assert it is real money gained by middle class? Ah, lies.

Unemployment claims at a 17 year low

A fuller perspective shows the lie.

Unemployment claims have been dropping steadily. Attributing it to Trump is like claiming that he put out a fire that was already mostly extinguished. Of course, he also claimed the same employment numbers were lies before relying on them for his own benefit, so there's another broken word of his. You really can't win with this, either Trump takes responsibility and admits that the complaints he made about unemployment statistics were false, or Trump has still left 90 million Americans without a job.

Illegal immigration drop by 75-90% depending on your source

Or you could at that some more. That isn't even getting into his already demonstrated lie about a Wall, his executive order, and his false sanctuary cities claims. Not to mention the toddlers and senior citizens added to his dangerous criminal list.

His handling of that has been yet another cavalcade of deceits, failure, and incompetence.

Supreme court nomination everyone agrees is good

Well, there's a lie. Your hyperbole betrays you. All it took is one.

There are others. 45 in the Senate alone.

Thats quite a bit for 3 months.

That's quite a bit of lies for 5 Sentences. No wonder Trump is your hero

If you still claim he did nothing, then y

It would seem that there is a lot of ignorance floating around on this topic. This kind of assistance is exactly what various states and the Fed have been implementing for years now to address the problem of the chronically homeless. And contrary to what many would like to think it seems to have a high success rate. However that doesn't mean it's some kind of magic bullet that instantly fixes everything as there are constantly new people becoming chronically homeless and more resources can obviously help. Here's a good NPR article from awhile back talking about such an implementation in Utah:

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/...

Again, your twisting what I said. There were plenty of progressive rioters in the 60's, but the specific riots I'm talking about, where conservative. Here is an example:
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/01/...

Yes, I reached back even further to show conservative riots. My point was that riots are not a progressive or conservative phenomenon. We've seen alot of progressive riots because the conservatives held (hold) the legal power and framework of the state. As that changes, we'll see more conservatives rioting. Riots are the obvious end game when people feel powerless.

But Energy Star is neither common nor a measuring stick.

You can get any sort of device an Energy Star rating, you don't even have to submit any testing to the EPA, it's much like the FCC certifications, you can get a Chinese company to certify your product by a "certified" lab in China.

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...
http://gizmodo.com/a-fake-gas-...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/r...

Rather than set fuel efficiency targets, tax a vehicle's registration based on its fuel consumption. Lets people have the freedom to drive an old, less-efficient vehicle if they wish, as long as they are willing to pay for it.

In the US this is already taking place. It's called a "gasoline tax", and both the feds and the states have their hands in the pockets of those who buy gas. Buy more gas, you pay more in taxes.

You just want another tax to do the same thing, as if one tax isn't enough.

The "one" you refer to is more like "one half". We haven't increased the tax in proportion to increase in price, it was a fixed amount, and we used to up in every couple years, until 1993. And so we have crummy roads because few states have the ability to pay for them. http://www.npr.org/2014/12/08/...

Even if you don't believe in science, not raising gas taxes to keep up the roads is stupid.

I think the problem isn't that the NYT or others don't have good facts. I'm sure they vet their content, or if they don't it's certainly not intentional. The problem is facts may or may not have any valid correlation or reasoning, and can be misinterpreted and misrepresented.

A great example of this (From the 1950s) was when residents in the Northwest started noticing micro-craters on their windshields. The pitting was widespread and many people are interviewed, and it turned out that everyone in the area seemed to have noticed unusually increased pitting on their windshields. Sources indicate that the US Government was also doing atomic testing, that perhaps cosmic rays were involved, and something needed to be done. Not only did this really happen but it turned out to be completely fake news http://www.npr.org/sections/npr-history-dept/2015/05/28/410085713/the-windshield-pitting-mystery-of-1954/ The facts were correct. The sources were credible. But the news was 100% wrong and misleading.

You may be surprised to hear that we have more than those two options. Here's the one preferred by economists: http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

Hamper reusing older equipment anywhere in the world by forcing recyclers to make it unusable - shredding it into small pieces.

Corporate rape, goes the same route as this:

http://www.npr.org/sections/al...

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.

https://www.google.com/search?...

This one is particularly good

http://www.npr.org/sections/in...

Anyone who had read their Mark Twain was aware of the Mississippi doing this all the time.

Here's more

https://www.google.com/search?...

Most people who have at least the basic knowledge of Earth Science will tell you changing course is what rivers do.

I think you missed the point. Of course, rivers can change course by either their own or direct human influences. In this case, TFA said it is from the climate change. I believe humans are parts of the climate change. However, I'm still not sure how much impact of human causes to the climate change which in turn causes the river to change course. There seems to be a missing link (explanation) to the whole process. It is rather a big leap to conclusion. Need more study of those impacts before making a big jump as in TFA...

I am sorry that would be because rivers don't change course on their own.

https://www.google.com/search?...

This one is particularly good

http://www.npr.org/sections/in...

Anyone who had read their Mark Twain was aware of the Mississippi doing this all the time.

Here's more

https://www.google.com/search?...

Most people who have at least the basic knowledge of Earth Science will tell you changing course is what rivers do.

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/25/...

> In 2003, Savage had enlisted a digital army to tie Santorum's name with
> an...unpleasant sexual definition...and then "Google bomb" the Republican
> until the new term became the top search result for "Rick Santorum."

And we're supposed to trust their "fact checking"? NOT!

Yes there absolutely is. Apart from many people suffering with sarin symptoms, and the fact that Assad has done exactly this before, there have been autopsies on three victims:

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...
http://metro.co.uk/2017/04/05/...

A committee of MPs has lambasted Uber's contracts with drivers as "gibberish" and "almost unintelligible" as the company attempts to ensure its drivers remain self-employed.

WTF is it any concern of the government, what sort of contract free citizens of able body and sound mind enter into with each other?

"egregious clause" which attempted to prevent people challenging their "self-employed" designation

Ah, I get it. After willingly entering into the contract, some drivers are tempted to demand more, and the politicians — always greedy for more taxe... , err, wealth to spread around — are happy to "fight" for them...

Pay no attention to the green men from taxi companies either...

What's hilarious is that Uber is hiring these Left wing celebrities to wage its PR war — Obama's hacks and now Adriana Huffington... Just imagine, what these people would have been saying on the matter, if they weren't bought and paid for by Uber already...

Well when Dept of Homeland Security Secretary says something, it's kind of unfair to claim a paper is making something up.

https://homeland.house.gov/hea...

http://www.npr.org/templates/t...

But hey, I get it, media bashing, it's the new cool.

There are also reports that college students are using this technology to get better test scores.

I will never forget seeing a program on US healthcare where a person who lost 3 fingers in an induustrial accident was tol the insurance will only cover X amount and he had to choose two of the three to save.

What you saw was a fraud. There is nowhere in the U.S. where employers are not required to be fully insured for such accidents. Even if the person had to pay on their own, the normal process would be for the hospital to do everything possible to save the fingers. They would then write off any loss or apply to one of our many charities that help cover the costs in cases like this. One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive here for those that can pay is because we subsidize those who can't.

A little google shows that the event discussed, a person losing several fingers and being told by the hospital to choose which ones to reattach, seems to have come from the Michael Moore film "Sicko." The details listed by AC, however, are inaccurate (unless there was another incident I couldn't find on google.) It was a table saw, not an industrial accident, and the man wasn't insured"

https://www.theguardian.com/fi...
http://www.npr.org/templates/s... :

Let's talk about some of the medical cases Michael Moore describes in this film. At the very beginning, there is one about an American man who loses the ends of two of his fingers in an accident with an electric saw. He did not have insurance. The man must choose between having his middle finger reattached for $60,000, or his ring finger for $12,000. The man chooses his ring finger. How can a man be put into the position of making that choice?

JOANNE SILBERNER: [In the U.S.,] the hospital doesn't have to give him care unless it's lifesaving care, and his life wasn't threatened by the loss of two digits. So the hospital was within its rights to say, "We can reattach your two digits, but it's going to cost you." The irony is that if he had insurance, the insurance company would have paid far less than $12,000 or $60,000. The insurers can negotiate rates with hospitals that individuals can't.

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

Sanctuary cities do not exist and nobody on the Progressive left talks about the need for them. Right?

Actually, they don't exist, especially not in the form that the Regressive right insists on falsely portraying them. They're pretty much just a straw-man where the right makes up false claims about lawlessness and crime in order to whip up a frenzy of hysteria.

Instead, what they are, is municipalities deciding that the Federal Government needs to be accountable, and forced to behave in a manner compliant with the law, by a policy of adherence to the strictures of law informing them that the cities won't knuckle under to their capriciousness. Not new, but a lingering problem for a supposed agency enforcing the law.

Of course, I'm old enough to remember when Janet Reno was demonized for returning Elian Gonzalez to his father. The mishandling of policies on Cuba is bad enough, but apparently we're supposed to decide parental rights on a whim?

So it's hypocrisy too. Even ignoring the other protests against the federal goverment, the silence on the failures of the immigration system is very telling.

Oh, I guess you are just another AC who's full of shit. Brave enough to hide in anonymity while claiming that I am being watched, as if you are a threat.

You're confused again, there's no threat to being judged, you're merely being observed, and recognized, for what your public behavior happens to be. It's called responsibility. You should recognize that as a natural consequence of communication. You spea

http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

If more people knew it cost them $5.54 a month just for ESPN there would be a lot more cord cutters.

I'm sorry, you're one of those "states rights" dipshits until a state does something you don't like. It's called - a state law. The supreme court has not invalidated it, no matter how much of a long, stupid and completely off tangent attempt you make to try to shoehorn one thing into meaning another.

So the answer to your question: "Didn't we just determine that filming officials is not merely a right, but a First Amendment right?" is.. NO, only fucking morons who don't understand the difference between police officers working for the public in a public setting, and doctors working for a private company would have had their heads so far up their ass to think that's what they were supposed to have learned.

And lets be real clear.... not only did NPR report none of the states found any evidence of wrongdoing, INCLUDING the fucking fake christian sociopaths running Texarse. Here's a good rundown if you can pull your head out of your ass long enough to be bothered to read it: http://www.npr.org/2016/01/28/...

These films were nothing more than a couple lying piece of shits, the likes of which normal people have come to expect from conservatives and fake christians, lying like little bitches because they're too fucking moronic to live in reality.

"they lock the phone down so you cant install 3rd party ROMs"

Just buy a Pixel from Google. They work on VZW. They weren't bootloader lock to start, and AFAIK they still aren't.

And, with recent changes with regard to ISPs, what makes you think there's one which "doesn't do crap like this", or won't soon? If there's nothing to prevent it, you can't assume it's not happening just because you don't know about it.

Umm. You put a natural gas power plant near the pipeline and then put the power on the transmission grid. Same with coal, hydropower or nuclear. The power grid makes location a non-issue.

As usual, when someone gives a simple answer it's often wrong. We have a power grid that spans the country already and here's a map of it: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...
But, transmission loss over distance is a very real thing that destroys efficiency and forces regions to have their own "local" power sources. So the source of electricity in the grid is vastly different depending on what region or state you are in. Here's a breakdown of the source of each US state's power grid: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...

Umm. You put a natural gas power plant near the pipeline and then put the power on the transmission grid. Same with coal, hydropower or nuclear. The power grid makes location a non-issue.

As usual, when someone gives a simple answer it's often wrong. We have a power grid that spans the country already and here's a map of it: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...
But, transmission loss over distance is a very real thing that destroys efficiency and forces regions to have their own "local" power sources. So the source of electricity in the grid is vastly different depending on what region or state you are in. Here's a breakdown of the source of each US state's power grid: http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/...

Fighting for territory is seen in many animal species though. It's not a "human only" trait. Homosapien 'victory' could be just as easily explained by better survivability (due to our ability to survive on the poorer diet that existed after the end of the ice age) expanding and pushing out some, while assimilating and mating with others.

There is also strong evidence that Neanderthals and Humans were on friendly terms. Another factor that might be worth considering: in the historical period, even when armies do fight and conquer each other, it's surprisingly rare to see complete slaughter of the losing side.

I think you both just typed past each other, missing each other's point.
 
I get that you were lampooning "the sky is falling" posts, but you picked a lot of examples that, historically, pushed a lot of people out of their jobs. You know, like the "robots are coming" folks are talking about happening.
 
I passed a construction site this morning, and a dozen or so men were ripping up a block of two-lane city streets. I watched 2 guys in backhoes dump tons of materials into two dump-trucks (2 guys), while 4 more guys worked in the holes to uncover sewer and power lines, while 2 more guys supervised and 2 more directed traffic. They'll be done with that block by tomorrow.
 
A century ago it would have taken many times more men many times longer to do that same work. Check out the photos from depression-era make-work programs. There are huge numbers of guys with shovels in those photos. Today, there are a dozen guys, and only 2-3 of them have shovels. Many of your other comments show the same disregard for advancement at the cost of human jobs. "My boss sent an email" used to take a secretary, a memo pad, and a mail-boy to accomplish. A vending machine replaces several human vendors. Keurig and automated coffee and soda machines have replaced soda fountain workers.
 
The point that you seem to be missing, that your counterpart didn't do a great job of explaining, is that the speed of mechanization and automation is increasing, while the transition to other jobs isn't happening at all in many cases, and not fast enough to make up for the losses in the rest. The money made off this mechanization and automation isn't being reinvested into the workplace, and that's creating a wealth disparity unlike any we've seen in at least a century, if not longer.
 
Have you read anything about the white despair that's starting to get noticed? For the first time, the death rate of non-college-educated, middle-aged whites is starting to dramatically increase. The reasons are drug overdoses and suicides. Why? Because the mining, factory, and farming jobs they used to have are either outsourced or mechanized and automated. There is nothing left for them to do. They can't join the service industry because nobody around them has any money to spend on it.
 
What now for these folks? They're already desperate enough to kill themselves slowly with drugs or quickly with a gun. They're in their 40s and 50s, and could live for another 30 years, if they had something to live for.
 
"The sky is falling, ROBOTS!" that you're lampooning is already impacting people, even if you don't see it. While I agree that it's overhyped, it's very real, and the problems it's already causing are just going to grow worse, and rather quickly.

because of a temporary drop in oil prices (we're a long way off from oil becoming worthless) why the heck are they doing so bad? I'm not gonna chuck if up to gov't corruption because _everywhere_ has that. Usually the rest of the world will send some aid to a country floundering like this. Heck even Greece got some. Did they piss everybody off somehow?

Venezuela's over-reliance on oil and low global oil prices may be the spark that started their economic fire, but they made a many other really bad economic decisions before and after the oil price drop that made things much much worse. Mind you there are other oil-dependent countries with economies that may be hurting, but they aren't spiraling into economic collapse like Venezuela...there's a lot more bad stuff going on there. I highly recommend listening to NPR's Planet Money podcast about Venezuela's current economic collapse, here: http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

You're right and wrong. To be clear, the Concorde was profitable on a day-to-day basis, enough to sustain it for for 27 years.

However, the expense for R&D was not recovered, true, and there just weren't enough of them, nor enough profits, to sustain an industry through Airbus or whoever to manufacture spare parts and replacement Concordes. So, they aged out. Had the problems of ozone depletion and sonic booms been addressed without being sensationalized (e.g., the Anti-Concorde Project), resulting in bans in most major airports, there may have been enough business to justify Airbus or Boeing tooling up to make replacement parts and even new SST's. Instead, the Concorde was orphaned, and doomed to die out when the supply of cannibalized parts from the few spare planes ran dry.

With modern materials, manufacturing, and avionics, there's no reason not to try again, and arrive at a much, much better result. Besides, there's more places to go. Right now, it takes more than 12 hours to fly from NY to Dubai, more than 14 to New Delhi or Seoul. Reducing that down to 6 would be well worth it to some folks with very deep pockets, deep enough perhaps to lobby away some antiquated restrictions, and justify a sustainable fleet of aircraft.

I don't care how much it will cost at first. The road to Ford's cheap, mass manufactured Model T was paved by a lot of unaffordable vehicles. If it gets built and it works, SST will become more affordable, and maybe stop the current race-to-the-bottom for current air travel.

Yep. Boss Trump is rallying the fans in Kentucky, promising to bring back coal jobs. Or, at least, bring back coal by letting up on silly environmental rules like the Stream Protection Rule.

Trouble is, giving coal companies a break doesn't necessarily mean good things for coal miners. Like everyone else, coal companies are heavily investing in automation and mining techniques that require fewer pesky workers. At the same time, strip-mining and poisoning the water and the land makes it suck worse to live in coal country, either as a miner or even as a crazed live-off-the-land survivor type.

Further, Trump is a big friend of fracking, which lowers the price of natural gas, which, like, lowers the demand for coal. Uhhh, right.

My guess is there's gonna be a lot of disappointed folks in coal country in a coupla years when the jobs don't come and Trumpcare takes over. Maybe by then AT&T will be hiring scabs to replace all the folks on strike. Can you run some fiber before that black lung gits ya, or will the heavy metals in the frogs and the river trout git ya first?

In fact, the Stream Protection Rule originated with coal miners. Coal miners, after all, presumably have to live somewhere nearby to the coal mine.

I don't believe for a moment that Obama wiretapped his ass

Well now, seems I might be wrong about something.

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/22/521133929/house-intel-chair-trump-aides-swept-up-in-legal-u-s-surveillance/

The chairman's revelations served to partly vindicate Trump's March 4 claim on Twitter about being incredulous that President Obama had sunk to "a new low" by ordering a wiretap of his phones before the election.

I find that part of the story very interesting. Also facts that seem to point at contacts with in Russa to the Trump campaign. Seems this pig might have caught the scent of a truffle. I say we sit back and see how this plays out.

None of that makes it a "disease".

The approach people take on addiction has a surprising connection to their political stance. For decades, the right has been approaching addiction as a mental/moral weakness: that those succumbing to addiction are not sick or diseased but mentally weak and need to be punished so that they will correct their behavior. This is the driving force behind the 'war on drugs':

Those on the left have taken more of a medical approach and insisted that addiction is a neurochemical issue which needs to be treated by doctors.

When we actually look at research and data it turns out the truth is slightly more complex than either of these models. Turns out, it's not just about character or chemicals, but the combination of addictive chemicals and the environment the individual is in. Around 20 % of US troops in Vietnam were addicted to heroin. However, upon returning to the States, only about 5 % of them continued using. This by itself has given researchers some insight into key components of addiction and the affect environment has on it. Quoting the link above:

Soon a comprehensive system was set up so that every enlisted man was tested for heroin addiction before he was allowed to return home. And in this population, Robins did find high rates of addiction: Around 20 percent of the soldiers self-identified as addicts.

Those who were addicted were kept in Vietnam until they dried out. When these soldiers finally did return to their lives back in the U.S., Robins tracked them, collecting data at regular intervals. And this is where the story takes a curious turn: According to her research, the number of soldiers who continued their heroin addiction once they returned to the U.S. was shockingly low.

"I believe the number of people who actually relapsed to heroin use in the first year was about 5 percent," Jaffe said recently from his suburban Maryland home. In other words, 95 percent of the people who were addicted in Vietnam did not become re-addicted when they returned to the United States.

This flew in the face of everything everyone knew both about heroin and drug addiction generally. When addicts were treated in the U.S. and returned to their homes, relapse rates hovered around 90 percent. It didn't make sense.

"Everyone thought there was somehow she was lying, or she did something wrong, or she was politically influenced," Jaffe says. "She spent months, if not years, trying to defend the integrity of the study."

But 40 years later, the findings of this study are widely accepted. To explain why, you need to understand how the science of behavior change has itself changed.

"Once a behavior had been repeated a lot, especially if the person does it in the same setting, you can successfully change what people want to do. But if they've done it enough, their behavior doesn't follow their intentions," Neal explains.

Neal says this has to do with the way that over time, our physical environments come to shape our behavior.

"People, when they perform a behavior a lot — especially in the same environment, same sort of physical setting — outsource the control of the behavior to the environment," Neal says.

Outsourcing control over your behavior sounds a little funny. But consider what happens when you perform a very basic everyday behavior like getting into a car.

"Of course on one level, that seems like the simplest task possible," Neal says, "but if you break it down, there's really a myriad set of complex actions that are performed in sequence to do that."

You use a certain motion to put your key in the lock. And then physically manipulate your body to get into the seat. There is another set of motions to insert the key in the ignition.

"All of this is actually very complicated and someone who had never driven a car befo

Whatever was the problem with Clinton was surely of much lesser magnitude than Trump's people having secret dealing with foreign state entities.

What? So, Hillary Clinton and her husband personally rake in millions of dollars selling access to foreign dictators

I don't like to see Hillary selling access to foreign dictators, any more than I like her selling access to Bear Sterns and domestic corporations. I am not a Hillary fan.

Trump, however, did things like personally change the Republican platform from supporting arms to the Ukranian resistance to pro-Russian factions. At the same time Trump had business deals with Russians like the "Fertilizer king" which got him hundreds of millions of dollars. This was documented pretty well by Rachel Maddow and others http://www.politifact.com/trut... https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.npr.org/2016/08/06/... and, if you prefer the other reality, even the Daily Caller http://dailycaller.com/2016/07...

So Trump was taking hundreds of millions of dollars from a country run by a dictator and adversary of the U.S., and he subsequently changed U.S. policies to favor that adversary and go softer on him (and defended Putin's killing of political enemies).

If he is serving the interests of a foreign adversary against the interests of his own country, because of his financial benefit, that's treason.

Hillary did something similar with her Clinton charity, Bear Sterns speeches, and other corporate favors. However, unlike Trump, she didn't take money from countries that were U.S. adversaries, but from "friendly" middle eastern dictatorships. And while I think that corporations like Bear Sterns are enemies of the American people, U.S. law doesn't support me on that.

Hillary sold out the working class (which should be a crime but isn't).

Trump sold out the whole country to a foreign enemy in exchange for hundreds of millions of dollars laundered as business deals. That's treason.

It doesn't help that the government has huge amounts of waste, runs an international health service, and pisses away of tax money in "foreign aid" at a time when there is a budgetary deficit in our own country.

Spare me. The US government spends approximately $600 billion per year on a grossly oversized military and coincidentally in 2016 also borrowed about $600 billion to pay for it. Less than 1% of the federal budget goes to foreign aid versus around 16% to the military. The US is among the smallest donors of foreign aid as a percent of GDP among wealthy countries. You're arguing that we "piss away money on foreign aid" when in fact what we are pissing away money on is weapons to defend against mostly non-existent threats. Your "facts" are wrong and I suggest you take some time to discover the real ones.

I don't find the age range surprising at all. That's pretty much the last generation that read much, so it makes sense that they would also be downloading more books.

There are lots of reports saying younger people do not read as much as they used to.

> Look at what would happen if you shot an American on American soil from Canada or Mexico.

Or how about a US Border Patrol agent killing a Mexican teenager on the other side of the border? He's been indicted http://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/...

It's not the first such incident, but it is the first indictment. Shit like this may convince Mexico to build a border wall in self-defense.

Was it an ad that NPR news had 7 minute sessions about B&tB today? I saw those as ads masquerading as stories even if NPR did not get paid a cent.
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/16/...

These questions are addressed in endless studies. It's a shame people always mod links to them down.

Here is a very detailed study that answers the questions you asked, and offers solutions: http://www.jite.informingscien...

From there it is easy to find more information:
http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/... - problems in education
http://www.npr.org/sections/al... - work culture

And since someone always claims that the stats are wrong, here are some experts explaining that the gap is real: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/...

It would be great if we could actually discuss this stuff for once instead of all the "we just don't know" hand-wringing.

If anyone is interested in the Flatow v. Iran case and it's aftermath NPR's Planet Money did a great podcast on it: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/... (I swear it's not left or right leaning story)

Apologies... I posted the wrong NPR link. Here's the full Planet Money podcast: http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

If anyone is interested in the Flatow v. Iran case and it's aftermath NPR's Planet Money did a great podcast on it: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/... (I swear it's not left or right leaning story)

Apologies... I posted the wrong NPR link. Here's the full Planet Money podcast: http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

There actually is a precedent allowing American citizens to sue other countries that support terrorism under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, but I assume the court decided Ethiopia's hacking was not an act of terrorism.
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Flatow v. Iran case details: http://www.leagle.com/decision...

I only point this out because the degree of legislation or judicial interpretation might be much less than people assume.

If anyone is interested in the Flatow v. Iran case and it's aftermath NPR's Planet Money did a great podcast on it: http://www.npr.org/2017/01/12/... (I swear it's not left or right leaning story)

Well it was already disclosed that nothing of value was found on the San Bernardino iPhone so it doesn't matter at this point anyway for that case. As you point out if the tool is used in other cases and there is some juicy bit of evidence found any flaw in the tool will be used to discredit it. The longer that is put off the better chance to get convictions based off of evidence produced by the tool.

I wonder if this is part of the "adult conversation" about encryption that FBI director James Comey mentioned last year that he was preparing to have this year. Also when ever mentioning that fucking iPhone it should also be pointed out that nothing of value was found on it. This way it becomes clear that encryption wasn't something that hampered the case in any way so they can't trot out that old saw to try and make their case against the public having access to strong encryption.

Another family member who is a veteran of the USMC and not a retiree is in the VA system. I'm not intimately acquainted with the details but it seems he has to jump through way more hoops to get care.

Basically, military medical benefits != VA benefits. A lot of it depends on length of service and other factors. Clarification/correction/refutation from active duty, vets and retirees welcomed.

This article explains some of the difference:

http://www.npr.org/sections/he...

it could turn in the event of a terrorist attack or criminal event where strong encryption can be shown to have hindered law enforcement.

That same Washington Post article also has FBI Director James Comey saying he is:

"focused on trying to get the law changed" so that companies would be required to unlock data and devices for law enforcement

Fast forward to the terror attacks on Paris and the line in media was all about how the terrorists used encrypted communication, a line that was total BS but is what was initially widely reported so that is what the general public believes. Then go forward a little more to the San Bernardino attack and that fucking encrypted iPhone. It was a problem because it was encrypted, but it turns out nothing of value was found on it.

Go forward a bit more to the latter part of last year and you again have FBI Directory James Comey stating that he is preparing to have an "adult conversation" on encryption next year. So I would expect that anything that can be done to vilify encryption in the public eye will be done. At this point it seems like the CIA leak may be used to help do this as a way to get some benefit of the leak, and I don't believe that this was some sort of false flag but probably an insider. So I would recommend keeping an eye out for vilification of encryption or those who are pro encryption (Friday March 10th 2017 stream of the Brokaw Report sounds strangely like a short calm version of InfoWars with Tom Brokaw playing the part of Alex Jones).

That drivel may get you modded up on /. but in America, where we have freedom of speech, there is a much higher libel/slander threshold than in the UK. This is well documented and known by anyone who knows WTF they are talking about. The net result is to stifle legitimate free speech in the UK and leave it's citizens ignorant of key facts because people and the media fear lawsuits.

http://www.npr.org/sections/pa...
http://saperlaw.com/2010/02/24...

Any time you can sue an entity for libel when it is not a clearly defined statement asserting fact that is demonstrably false, you reduce your freedom of speech for everyone. Libel and slander laws by definition are limits on freedom of speech. That you don't understand that that simple fact puts you squarely in the ignorant or troll category. Experts in the UK legal system may disagree with me, but the entire premise of my post is that UK freedom of speech and libel laws are substandard in quality and US freedom of speech is the gold standard that the UK should push for.

He said what was "unprecedented" actually was Clinton's exclusive use of private email and her own Internet service provider in lieu of an official account "so that the records of her email account would reside solely within her personal control at home." That means "she managed successfully to insulate her official emails, categorically, from the FOIA, both during her tenure at State and long after her departure from it — perhaps forever." He called that "a blatant circumvention of the FOIA by someone who unquestionably knows better.

It is certain that she didn't like email because of the risk of investigation, see this video clip.

All of this really doesn't matter anymore though, it's in the past and more an issue for historians than anything.

I like the bit where you go "I don't know if what I'm saying is true, but it is true cause it is supported by my hate."

Cause that is where you both fuck up ANY credibility your data might have (cause you don't give a fuck about data) - AND you cement your judgment in hate and prejudice.

Guess what?
Republicans held those positions since Obama's second term, enlarging them from the lead they had since his first term.
If you think it's the "witch" - how come Republicans GAINED AND KEPT GAINING seats under Obama, starting from the last population census?

Two words.
Jerry and mandarin.
Oh and BTW, Democrats actually ended up with a net gain chamber-wise while most governor positions weren't even up for election.

But you just go on believing in witches bro. And enjoying yourself. After all, Trump won.
Why are you still so hung up on the other side losing? Get over it already.
Sing Hallelujah, come on, get happy... and all that jazz.
Don't be such a sore winner.

Evidence please? And not "it's been used 160,000 times".

A simple search in /. for "chatbot parking" turned up this previous article, which indicated that it successfully challenged 160,000 out of 250,000 tickets. So, no, not "it's been used 160,000 times". This is a "it's won 160,000 times". And that was as of June of last year. This NPR piece from earlier this year indicates that its up to 200,000 successful cases now in just three cities, and that its overall success rate with parking tickets stands at around 60%.

The question is, is 60% any better than any other methods. I'd say it's much lower than paying a lawyer at $400 an hour (I know a traffic lawyer who boasts a 90% sucess rate, thats where I got the $400 p/h figure from, I believe him because he doesn't take cases he's certain are going to lose). Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is, if it's issued by a local government, you need a bulletproof excuse to get out of it. If it's issued by a private corporation, just chuck it in the bin (so you don't get a fine for littering).

To issue fines, you need to either take it to court or have a remit from the government to do so. Pretty much the only organisations that I know of who have the power to do that without the local government doing the enforcing are universities (which have to have government issued charters to operate to begin with).