Slashdot Mirror

Replying to the false narrative Russia keeps putting out:

I guess they would be defending Crimea and other Russia territory from attacks over the border.

There was nothing to defend since it isn't their territory. It's Ukrainian soil and Ukraine wasn't attacking Russia, let alone even threatening Russia.

However, since the Russian invasion and occupation of Crimea there has been wholesale arrests of Crimean Tartars, the television, radio and other Tartar news sources have been shut down, and their businesses stolen.

Got Crimea back,

There was nothing to get back. It wasn't Russia's to begin with.

got involved in Syria and seems to have resolved it

By deliberately bombing hospitals and civilians, yes, that is one way.

and installed his choice of leader in the White House.

Agreed. Putin did a fantastic job on the gullible rednecks in the U.S. which shows how far this country has sunk.

while removing sanctions and doing deals to boost the Russian economy.

Also agreed. That is what Russia needs most right now because with oil prices still being low, Russia just might run out of money in the coming year. We know the sanctions have been have been having an effect so Putin had to do whatever he could to make sure Hillary Clinton didn't get in since she would have increased sanctions as well as possibly provide military support to Ukraine.

It's only 35F degrees higher than normal in some parts of the Artic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...

Seriously, Engadget for science news?

Not going to call Obama out on that one? Yeah, Russia is nice enough to downplay this for the time being, but it's a funny coincidence that two different Russian diplomats have suddenly died just days after Obama promised retaliation for allegedly being behind the exposure of DNC corruption.

And now, temperatures in the Arctic are soaring upwards: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/science/arctic-global-warming.html

All just "funny coincidences"? I doubt it. Obama sure is getting the last word on global events.

I like how you've smoothly changed requiring consent into needing written permission as an attempt to discredit it.

What is "consent"? If it is anything less than a written (signed and solemnly notarized) note, how do we know, Trump didn't have it?

When Trump makes a statement without bountiful evidence to back it up, he is denounced as a liar — because absence of proof is, conveniently ("smoothly" you would say), is changed into proof of absence. For example:

So, if Trump's statements are lies unless proven (#PresumptionOfGuilt), how could he possibly prove having obtain consent from those women years ago? Only by getting it in writing... Which he failed to do and is, by the special rules created for Republican politicians, guilty.

You conveniently leave out the key detail: Hillary Clinton was never involved in the deal. You further leave out that the Canadian government was also involved and had to sign off on the deal.

You also leave out that in addition to the State Department there were eight other agencies involved with the deal, including the Director of National Intelligence.

But I guess in your fantasy world Hillary was able to cajole all these people, including a foreign government, to make the deal because in a round-about manner her foundation received legal foreign donations from a country who was in negotiation to buy a uranium mine, a deal in which she was never involved with. Yeah, sounds completely plausible.

Dumb shit, read my link.
He was asked the question, and he clearly confused it with someone asking something about the BORDER, and his reply has been cherry picked to induce your rage.

Remember, this is the NYT that famously decided that Trump was 'so dangerous' they should just set aside the norms of objectivity.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08...?

Think about that next time one of their stories seems to confirm your bias.

Is there a special be-dumb additive in the water?

No.

It's much easier to explain than an off-the-wall guess like that.

The fossil fuel industry is in its death throes and putting up a fight.

Your first clue would be Trump's proposed nomination for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson.

The second would be his choice for Energy Secretary, former governor of Texas Rick Perry.

Third up: Head of EPA, Scott Pruitt.

So ... it's not the water.

It's the money.

Did Donald Trump advocate for a Muslim registry? Yes or no?

If he did, it was — likely as not — out of concern for those freedoms and the rights we cherish. Because Islam is incompatible with many of them.

Granted, other religions also frown at "unbelievers" (that is, believers in something else) and "immoral" behaviors, but only Islam compels the followers to not only disapprove of, but to actively right the perceived wrongs.

About 300 years ago, a bunch of White Christian men thought a nation with the First Amendment being among the laws of the land. Even today it is impossible to imagine a similar group of Muslims writing down anything of the kind.

Islam, which considers people like Barack Obama apostates , is incompatible with the First Amendment. Ironically, it is exactly that law, which prevents us from doing much about the threat. But I would not condemn Trump for trying...

http://www.nytimes.com/politic... But I forgot, you can't trust media institutions that have been in print for over a hundred years. You can only trust online news sources that have been around for a decade.

Ergo, without California, Trump's nation-wide deficit of 2,833,220 votes becomes a 1,436,758 surplus. Just as I said.

Could that Nigerian asshole have had anything to do with Hillary getting so many more votes in CA than in the rest of the nation? Of course not. But it is just as plausible as Putin somehow "hacking our elections"...

Why, any Congressional investigation that is active before the real investigators have determined what the facts of the matter are.

Annnnnd determining the facts invariably involves putting people under oath and asking them questions. The original pedant fail.

"Congressional investigations" are not investigations

Nonsense. Congress has stronger investigative powers than any police department or the DOJ, as they can directly issue subpoenas to compel documents or testimony, as opposed to having to go through a court order. They can even use inherent contempt to have the sergeant at arms drag your to the hearing, without having to ask the capital police or the DOJ to do it for them. Lying to Congress is a federal offense, though it's up to the DOJ to bring charges. No, they can't sentence you to jail, but neither can the police while performing an investigation.

The rest of parent comment are merely insults that have no value in a reasoned discussion.

So, not only are you a pedant who is wrong on the facts, you whine about non-existent insults. Because it's not an insult when it's true:

Pedant, noun
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to common sense.
4. Obsolete. a schoolmaster.

Posting a response that is a pointless nitpicking of spelling without addressing the argument being made, is pedantry, straight up.

This "grenade" story is not at all true.

Her arm was blown off by a propane-tank IED built by the protesters. The remains of the tanks were confiscated after the explosion, and her clothing was taken for testing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2...

I agree with all of this except the no PTSD part. We're seeing PTSD in drone pilots. Apparently push-button killing is still perceived as killing. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02...

>How does a donation to a charitable foundation turn into a campaign donation?

Simple, when there is no firewall whatsoever between the 'charitable foundation'* and the campaign.

*charitable, mainly, for the Clintons; for example https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04...

In case you're not following the money:
1. You create a separate foreign "charity." In this case one in Canada.

2. Foreign oligarchs and governments, then donate to this Canadian charity. In this case, over 1,000 did -- contributing more than $33 million. I'm sure they did this out of the goodness of their hearts, and expected nothing in return. (Imagine Putin's buddies waking up one morning and just deciding to send untold millions to a Canadian charity).

3. The Canadian charity then bundles these separate donations and makes a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

4. The Clinton Foundation and the cooperating Canadian charity claim Canadian law prohibits the identification of individual donors.

5. The Clinton Foundation then "spends" some of this money for legitimate good works programs. Unfortunately, experts believe this is on the order of 10%. Much of the balance goes to enrich the Clinton's, pay salaries To untold numbers of hangers on, and fund lavish travel, etc. Again, virtually all tax free, which means you and I are subsidizing it.

6. The Clinton Foundation, with access to the world's best accountants, somehow fails to report much of this on their tax filings. They discover these "clerical errors" and begin the process of re-filing 5 years of tax returns.

7. Net result -- foreign money, much of it from other countries, goes into the Clinton's pockets tax free and untraceable back to the original donor. This is the textbook definition of money laundering.

The difference between your story and this one is the pilot handed over the plane because he was defecting. In this case the Chinese went out and took the underwater drone.

People also forget in Bush's first term, soon after entering office, one of our surveillance planes was hit by a Chinese jet and had to land on Chinese soil. The crew wasn't able to destroy all the equipment or files before leaving the plane so guess what the Chinese did.

The answer is simple - the whole thing is bogus. Even if Russia were behind it it's nothing compared to what the US, via the CIA, did to their ally Japan. With friends like those, who needs enemies except as a distraction from your own corruption?

I know this triggers cognitive dissonance, but Obama is, in fact, pro-fracking, much to the displeasure of his base. He does favor more regulation than the industry would prefer, including regulations on worker safety and environmental impact.

It boils down to this: while burning more fossil fuel is bad for climate change, the growth of natural gas is largely at the expense of coal. Natural gas emits only half the net CO2 per BTU that coal does.

Clinton's plan was actually pretty good in this respect: continue the shift from coal to natural gas, but to hedge her bets with renewable technologies, locating renewable-related jobs in areas losing coal jobs. That's not as favorable to the coal miners as bringing back the glory days of coal, but the those days just aren't coming back. By 2020 the cost to generate a given amount of electricity with coal will be almost 1/3 higher than generating the same amount with natural gas. Even if you threw out all the safety and pollution regulations they aren't coming back, because you'd have to make coal 1/3 cheaper per BTU than gas before it could compete economically with gas plants, which are more efficient and cheaper to operate. You'd have to cut the price of coal by more than 1/2.

useful idiots the lot of you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...

On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a “useful idiot” serving Russian interests. That may not be exactly right. After all, useful idiots are supposed to be unaware of how they’re being used, but Mr. Trump probably knows very well how much he owes to Vladimir Putin. Remember, he once openly appealed to the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

Still, the general picture of a president-elect who owes his position in part to intervention by a foreign power, and shows every sign of being prepared to use U.S. policy to reward that power, is accurate.

But let’s be honest: Mr. Trump is by no means the only useful idiot in this story.. As recent reporting by The Times makes clear, bad guys couldn’t have hacked the U.S. election without a lot of help, both from U.S. politicians and from the news media.

Let me explain what I mean by saying that bad guys hacked the election. I’m not talking about some kind of wild conspiracy theory. I’m talking about the obvious effect of two factors on voting: the steady drumbeat of Russia-contrived leaks about Democrats, and only Democrats, and the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.

Does anyone really doubt that these factors moved swing-state ballots by at least 1 percent? If they did, they made the difference in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania — and therefore handed Mr. Trump the election, even though he received almost three million fewer total votes. Yes, the election was hacked.

By the way, people who respond to this observation by talking about mistakes in Clinton campaign strategy are missing the point, and continuing their useful idiocy. All campaigns make mistakes. Since when do these mistakes excuse subversion of an election by a foreign power and a rogue domestic law enforcement agency?

So why did the subversion work?

It’s important to realize that the postelection C.I.A. declaration that Russia had intervened on behalf of the Trump campaign was a confirmation, not a revelation (although we’ve now learned that Mr. Putin was personally involved in the effort).

The pro-Putin tilt of Mr. Trump and his advisers was obvious months before the election — I wrote about it in July. By midsummer the close relationship between WikiLeaks and Russian intelligence was also obvious, as was the site’s growing alignment with white nationalists.

Did Republican politicians, so big on flag waving and impugning their rivals’ patriotism, reject this foreign aid to their cause? No, they didn’t. In fact, as far as I can tell, no major Republican figure was even willing to criticize Mr. Trump when he directly asked Russia to hack Mrs. Clinton.

This shouldn’t come as a surprise. It has long been obvious — except, apparently, to the news media — that the modern G.O.P. is a radical institution that is ready to violate democratic norms in the pursuit of power. Why should the norm of not accepting foreign assistance be any different?

The bigger surprise was the behavior of the news media, and I don’t mean fake news; I mean big, prestigious organizations. Leaked emails, which everyone knew were probably the product of Russian hacking, were breathlessly reported as shocking revelations, even when they mostly revealed nothing more than the fact that Democrats are people.

Meanwhile, the news media dutifully played up the Clinton server story, which never involved any evidence of wrongdoing, but merged in the public mind into the perception of a vast “email” scandal when there was nothing there.

Genetic disorder mitigated by genetic manipulation. Yes?

Instead of progeria-afflicted mice, why not attempt the technique on otherwise healthy mice? If that can be made to result in a 30% lifespan extension, that would be notable.

"The team also saw improved organ health in normal mice but, because the mice are still living, could not yet say if longevity was extended."

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12...

relatively safe before they get on the road

No it doesn't. Besides, liability laws do that.

Have you ever sued anybody?

Lawsuits are expensive, the judgment doesn't pay your lawyer's fees if you win, and if a pedestrian or passenger with horrible damages sues a driver who doesn't have a lot of money, all he can collect is the limit of the insurance policy, which may be only a fraction of the damages. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/0...

New York City had this problem with taxi drivers, so they raised the insurance coverage, and they also changed the partition between the passenger compartment and the driver's compartment, which gave drivers some protection against robbery but also caused some severe facial injuries in minor accidents.

The other problem with your libertarian ideas is that your fellow-travellers, the Republican pro-business conservatives, are working on tort "reform" which makes it more difficult for people who are injured to collect damages commensurate with the injuries.

Workers Compensation is like that. Would you want to lose an arm, and be compensated for a 25% disability under the no-fault disability system with $175 a week? Most people would rather be working in a factory with government regulations that prevents them from losing the arm in the first place.

The other stunt that your corporate masters are pulling is to put "arbitration clauses" into the fine print of contracts that you can sign. https://www.uber.com/legal/ter...

Any lawyer who handles personal injury cases can tell you that it's a lot easier and cheaper to prevent accidents in the first place than to go to court and try to compensate the victim afterwards. The drivers don't care. If they wind up with a million dollar judgment, they'll just go bankrupt or move back to the third-world country they came from.

> I'd say both have been into unethical behavior equally,

I'm sorry but no fucking way.

Clinton's "unethical behavior" was so huge that when the AP reported on her malfeasance they spent 11 paragraphs on the 'scandal' of when Clinton tried to help Muhammad Yunus a former Nobel Peace Prize winner who’s also the recipient of a Congressional Gold Medal and a Presidential Medal of Freedom. When the NYT reported on her ethical failures, they spent nearly an entire story on the "expose" of how she arranged for Bill Clinton to rescue political hostages from North Korea. Meanwhile the Clinton Foundation received top scores from Charity Navigator and Charity Watch.

The only reason people think trump is at all equivalent to clinton is because trump's olympus-sized pile of shit caused outrage fatigue and the media tried to do its false balance reporting schtick by digging for bottom of the barrel stories on Clinton to somehow even out the coverage in the name of being 'objective.' But that's only a valid approach when they are actually equal.

Shuttle was finally ended in 2011. After Obama took office, he had plenty of time to reinstate it.

Not without huge costs that the taxpaying public never would have accepted. The facility for building External Tanks had been decommissioned, the one for cleaning SRB parachutes had been repurposed, and NASA had pretty much depleted eBay as a source for obsolete electronics.

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

The Friends of Putin Club

The friends of Putin have lost the elections and are spending their hours in the waiting rooms of the therapists dealing with grief.

Here is, what real friendship looks like

• The idiotic "Reset" of 2009.
• The 2010 abolition of all sanctions imposed on Russia for Putin's invasion of Georgia — in the (wane) hope of gaining cooperation on Iran — thus, as predicted, inviting Putin to repeat the same scenario in Ukraine and Syria.
• In 2012 ridiculing Mitt Romney's suggestion, Russia may be hostile to the US. Hillary Clinton was particularly scathing.
• Routing billions of dollars of investment into Russian high-tech industry, some of it, obviously, with military connections.
• Getting richly rewarded by Russian companies (all of them on Kremlin's tight leash).

Trump? Oh, yes, he wouldn't reveal his tax-returns, so he must be on Putin's payroll. Right...

Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures.

Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.

and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.

False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family, never profited from any contributions or otherwise while she was Secretary of State. Nor from their foundation.

Contrast that with Trump who bragged about siphoning millions from his casinos while they were plunging into bankruptcy:

"Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me," Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. "The money I took out of there was incredible."

Further, Trump's "foundation" has been illegally paying his legal bills, his personal bills and buying him things. That is why the New York Attorney General has barred him from soliciting for donations in the entire state of New York.

You just like the fact that she was completely beholden to her financiers on Wall Street, as opposed to Trump, who paid his own way through to his nomination as a candidate

False again. Trump received tens of millions from hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms, not to mention his pick to head the Treasury is/was a hedge fund manager AND worked for Goldman Sachs.

Nor did Trump pay his way through the campaign. He started to do so but then had donations come in from regular people, including illegal foreign donations.

Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures.

Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.

and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.

False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family, never profited from any contributions or otherwise while she was Secretary of State. Nor from their foundation.

Contrast that with Trump who bragged about siphoning millions from his casinos while they were plunging into bankruptcy:

"Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me," Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. "The money I took out of there was incredible."

Further, Trump's "foundation" has been illegally paying his legal bills, his personal bills and buying him things. That is why the New York Attorney General has barred him from soliciting for donations in the entire state of New York.

You just like the fact that she was completely beholden to her financiers on Wall Street, as opposed to Trump, who paid his own way through to his nomination as a candidate

False again. Trump received tens of millions from hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms, not to mention his pick to head the Treasury is/was a hedge fund manager AND worked for Goldman Sachs.

Nor did Trump pay his way through the campaign. He started to do so but then had donations come in from regular people, including illegal foreign donations.

Trump has a long track record of running hundreds of business ventures.

Many of which have failed, declared bankruptcy or are barely keeping their head above water. His repeated lies about how much his businesses are worth are undermined by his own attorneys who keep arguing the properties are worth substantially less for tax purposes.

and a long track record of raking in millions in cash for her family while being Secretary of State.

False. Completely false. Hillary Clinton, or her family, never profited from any contributions or otherwise while she was Secretary of State. Nor from their foundation.

Contrast that with Trump who bragged about siphoning millions from his casinos while they were plunging into bankruptcy:

"Atlantic City fueled a lot of growth for me," Mr. Trump said in an interview in May, summing up his 25-year history here. "The money I took out of there was incredible."

Further, Trump's "foundation" has been illegally paying his legal bills, his personal bills and buying him things. That is why the New York Attorney General has barred him from soliciting for donations in the entire state of New York.

You just like the fact that she was completely beholden to her financiers on Wall Street, as opposed to Trump, who paid his own way through to his nomination as a candidate

False again. Trump received tens of millions from hedge fund managers and Wall Street firms, not to mention his pick to head the Treasury is/was a hedge fund manager AND worked for Goldman Sachs.

Nor did Trump pay his way through the campaign. He started to do so but then had donations come in from regular people, including illegal foreign donations.

Twitter is a chat program. And they keep censoring things. Stupid things. In crazy hypocritical ways.

Do you have some examples? They certainly aren't censoring the "stupid things" that Trump tweets out, or any of the hateful garbage he Tweets out, either.

The predominate exporter of solar energy is China. Now I don't care if you want green energy or not, the net effect is the relocation of U.S. energy dependence from OPEC to China. Now, given Saudi Arabia has basically crapped all over human rights with zero international challenge as a result of their control of energy, it should be clear to everyone the dangers of such a situation. And what we see is a long line of Chinese donations to the political party which keeps shipping U.S. energy to China "in the name of the environment" and "free trade": These aren't new claims, e.g. from 1998: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05... What's fantastic is when Republicans point this out, they're just labeled "science deniers."

The C.I.A. suspected that Mr. Snowden was trying to break into classified computer files to which he was not authorized to have access, and decided to send him home, according to two senior American officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10... He's a pathological liar, who hides behing "TOP SECRET" for an explanation as to why he has never done anything other than give pre-rehearsed interviews.

He was then employed for less than a year in 2005 as a "security specialist" at the University of Maryland's Center for Advanced Study of Language, a non-classified facility.[36] In June 2014, Snowden told Wired that this was "a top-secret facility" where his job as a security guard required a high-level security clearance, for which he passed a polygraph exam and underwent a stringent background check.[16]

(From Wikipedia)

He's a fame seeking sharepoint admin who abused the trust placed in him multiple times. The side effect of that was that we got to learn about the massive spying program but let's not pretend like Snowden is some genius hacker hero.

As an environmentalist, I support wind power, including wind power on the high seas. I am also involved in siting wind farms in appropriate landscapes, of which there are many. But I do believe that some places should be off limits to any sort of industrial development. I wouldn't build a wind farm in Yosemite National Park. Nor would I build one on Nantucket Sound, which is exactly what the company Energy Management is trying to do with its Cape Wind project.

- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., a.k.a. Mr. NIMBY

They leaked some old ones, actually: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

As for this story, it makes no sense. The email in question is here and for some reason, I was unable to find any links to it in either article. As an aside, why do media outlets fail so badly at citing sources like this? It should be utterly basic journalism, but the major papers routinely fail to do this very basic step and wonder why bloggers eat their lunch... This was first reported many weeks ago, they're severely behind the times on this. I mean, you know it's bad when you're scooped by Slashdot commenters.... sheesh!

Back on topic, the relevant part of the response to the spear phishing email says this:

This is a legitimate email. John needs to change his password immediately, and ensure that two-factor authentication is turned on his account. He can go to this link: https://myaccount.google.com/s... to do both. It is absolutely imperative that this is done ASAP.

If you or he has any questions, please reach out to me at [redacted]

It's definitely an illegitimate email, but there's more wrong with the statement above than just typing "a legitimate email" instead "an illegitimate email." Being illegitimate means they DON'T yet have his password, so there would be no reason to change it and no good reason to advise that! Two-factor authentication, however, is very reasonable.

We know from the stats on the bit.ly link to the phishing page that Podesta didn't follow his instructions to go to https://myaccount.google.com/security though, and it's true that we can't hold Charles Delavan responsible for that part.

To hack complete idiots.

But you need a scapegoat to blame someone for the truth getting out.

Hell, IF it was the Russians, they at least did the job the New York Times and the Washington Post failed to do.

What, the Russians showed us the TRUTH about Hillary!? Given all the millions of dollars the Russians had funneled to her, you gotta wonder why they tried to undermine her in the election. Kinda makes you think it WASN'T the Russians that did the hack.

Hell, I'd believe it was a bunch of FBI agents disgruntled over Comey's whitewashing the litany of felonies Hillary! committed with her illegal private email server that didn't exist and that didn't have classified data. Any such group of FBI agents would, unlike Russia, at least have a reason to go after Hillary! and give the RNC a pass.

I know that /. can be a a bit of a fact free zone these days but:
In the Disney the H1B workers were employed by a contracting firm
H1B Rules
H1B Guidelines

I don't think you're being honest. I can't think of a state that requires anything definitive.

You must be dishonest, so dishonest, you don't think anybody has heard of Voter ID.

Somehow that's racist. Black people they tell us can't either get an ID or they can't be trusted to have it on election day. I'd think they're the racist ones saying black people are so stupid and irresponsible, however somehow it's not.

Nothing racist about saying that IDs are deliberately made hard to get for many people, due to mysteriously shutting down locations, only opening them at certain hours, and other effects.

Maybe it's just the black people that are also Democrats, which seems consistent.

Yep, that's what happened in North Carolina.

I have a voter reg card, I've never been asked for it nor any other identification in the 30+ years I've been voting. Not once. I've lived in three different counties. Same thing.

Counties are not states. See

Here are the dead voting - http://watchdog.org/57643/md-d...

Then you read the article, and it says:

"At least two dead voters showed up to vote at least once in a Maryland general election between 2004 and 2008, according to a voter registration watchdog group that has reviewed thousands of voter records this year, 1 percent of the rolls in the largest counties."

According to them. But...

"The group – Election Integrity Maryland – filed a complaint with the State Board of Elections Aug. 30. The group said it found several potential dead voters, voters who registered after they had died and a living Maryland resident who has been voting twice in elections for years."

But potential is the key word.

Here's another article:

Which says other things.

http://articles.baltimoresun.c... - in this case they were able to prove in court a lot of dead people voted. The Democratic judge didn't care. He didn't invalidate the results even though it's clear the ballot box was stuffed and Sourbrey lost by less than 6000 votes.

No, they weren't able to make that proof.

Again, from your own article:

"But others, including city elections administrator Barbara Jackson, said incorrect registrations are common in Baltimore and not necessarily evidence of fraud. Many people fail to notify the election board when they move and continue to vote from their old address, she said."

"The Sun did locate one voter identified by the Sauerbrey campaign, Ora L. Lewis, who listed 913 Whitelock St., a building that was razed several months ago, as her home address on her voter registratio

> I would also argue that a lot of people might choose alternatives like 'make me comfortable as long as possible' at those prices.

End of life issues are definitely adding to rising costs.

People seem to be moving away from the concept that death is inevitable, especially when making decisions on behalf of elderly loved ones who are unable to speak for themselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09...

https://www.amazon.com/Knockin...

Actually, the rich are living longer ( http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02... ) There are several reasons why overall longevity in the US is down.
- Cost of health care
- Life style: Americans are much more sedentary. Obesity rates and associated diseases are up ( high blood pressure, diabetes, cholesterol levels) . We're seeing 40 year olds in nursing homes due to obesity. Nursing homes are having to retro-fit equipment and make larger doors for Bariatric patients.
- The shift in wealth to the rich. As wealth disparity increases, there's less resources (money) for poor.

You mean like the time Amazon erased "1984" & "Animal Farm" from EVERYONE'S Kindle? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07...

At least my thermostat doesn't stop working randomly and my lights don't turn on and off because someone flew their drone by my house. That, and my things don't participate in DDoS attacks.

1) money will come back into the US and help our economy

False. Many of those who brought money back into the U.S. cut jobs. From the U.S. Treasury itself:

In assessing the 2004 tax holiday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service reports that most of the largest beneficiaries of the holiday actually cut jobs in 2005-06 - despite overall economy-wide job growth in those years - and many used the repatriated funds simply to repurchase stock or pay dividends.

Also, as the New York Times pointed out, using the government's own reports:

About 92 percent of it went to shareholders, mostly in the form of increased share buybacks and the rest through increased dividends.

In other words, no help to the economy.

2) whoever does it will be crucified for being easy on big business income taxes

Which Bush was but then again, this was the same guy who handed over $700 billion of taxpayer money to banks and Wall Street firms so they could pay out their bonuses. Obviously he didn't care about being crucified or what the people thought. It wasn't his money.

No, Uber is in court all over the place and having to iron out agreements with municipal and state governments, has been held to be an employer, and is facing class action lawsuits, while and Apple is facing several class action lawsuits over touch diseased iPhones spontaneously becoming i-Can't-Phones.

Driven by Trump's 'Spending Binge' and Dollar Rally

The two offered reasons seem to be mutually exclusive... Either we see inflation — as Trump's government prints money to finance the feared "binge" (which is oh so different from the wise Government Spending of the Obama era). Such printing may cause an inflation with dollar falling against other currencies — including BitCoin. In this case, BitCoin may, indeed, rise in value.

Or we see dollar "rally" — rise in value against other currencies, including BitCoin.

So, which is it?

When inflation rises the Federal Reserve may raise interest rates to bring it under control. This causes the dollar to appreciate because it would be seen as an attractive currency for foreign investors.

I don't think, a raising of rates ever reversed inflation in the history of Federal Reserve — it can only slow it down. They would not even seek to stop it, considering the value of 1-2% per year "normal" (that's a tax on wealth, BTW).

Story explaining how Clinton took BRIBES from Russia to sell them a large chunck of US uranium.

Lets repeat that, Clinton took BRIBES FROM RUSSIA to approve the sale of Uranium to them.
Please give me an example of how a politician can be more corrupt than that. I'm not sure how it could be possible.
This is just a single example of her taking $600 million in bribes from companies/foreign countries for state department favors.

Analog is getting its revenge. From the review:

"Analog experiences can provide us with the kind of real-world pleasures and rewards digital ones cannot," he writes, and "sometimes analog simply outperforms digital as the best solution." Pen and paper can give writers and designers a direct means of sketching out their ideas without the complicating biases of software, while whiteboards can bring engineers "out from behind their screens" and entice them "to take risks and share ideas with others."

And further down the review:

In these pages, Mr. Sax takes us on a spirited tour of the resurgent analog universe. He takes us to United Record Pressing, a vinyl plant in Nashville that's churning out 40,000 records a day, with a staff that's tripled since 2010.

Of course this is nothing new. I've been saying analog is better than digital for a very long time despite being modded down every time I say it.

Interesting tidbit from the NY Times coverage of this announcement: Last year Google used as much energy as the city of San Francisco.

Article

(Clear your cookies if you're maxed out on NY Times articles)

My bad, I got mixed up with the Pizzagate article today. Here are the links:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-po...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11...
https://www.buzzfeed.com/craig...

By the way, did you notice how the owner of the pizza restaurant didn't post the photo you linked to? And how it's not proof of anything other than someone making a really bad joke? This is what conspiracy theories are made of.

And... they're off!

This is a stupid complaint. "85 % chance" does not mean "100 % chance". It should be offensive to anyone who understands the concept of probabilities, and even more so to anyone with any understanding of polling.

The great Hunza secret to old age turned out to be its absence of birth records. The illiterate elders didn't know how old they were, and they tended to overestimate their ages by a decade or two, as I discovered by comparing their recollections with known historical events.

Read yourself: The Optimists Are Right.

And... they're off!

Hillary campaign bus involved in deadly crash.

And of course, CNN falsly admits it aired pornography for 30 minutes on thanksgiving.

Synopsis of previous link: 1) A Twitter user in the Boston area reported that CNN was airing hardcore pornography for 30 minutes through local provider RCN. 2) Picked up by The Independent, a leading left-of-center newspaper based in the United Kingdom. 3) Subsequently many other media outlets including Variety magazine, the U.K. Daily Mail, the New York Post, Esquire magazine and Mashable, &c. 4) Eventually, CNN actually confirmed that it did air “inappropriate content” and was seeking an “explanation” from RCN.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened.

Mainstream media has a bit of a credibility problem, yah?

Right wing gutter rag Daily Mail in the UK reports (complete with copious photographic coverage) that Kim Jong Un fed his uncle to pack of hungry dogs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Alt-right news source Breitbart reports same (also complete with photographs of one of the canine perpetrators): http://www.breitbart.com/blog/...

The main stream press also reported this.

Summary of the previous two links:
1) This story appears as satirical post on a Chinese social media network.
2) The story appears in Wen Wei Po, a Hong Kong tabloid with a reputation for sensationalism.
3) The Singaporean Straits Times re-reports the story in english. At this point it seems to make the transition form satire to news.
4) The Western press (left, right and alt-rigth) jumps on board and reports story as fact (often complete with photographs of canine perpetrators).

It seems to me the alt-right press isn't any more professional than the mainstream media. I can believe that N-Korean state henchmen would sic dogs on a prisoner but 120 dogs? Kim himself and no less than 300 senior officials supervising? Really? One senior official supervising something is bad enough, 300 supervising the same event? There is something wrong with journalism in general regardless of political leaning.

And... they're off!

Hillary campaign bus involved in deadly crash.

And of course, CNN falsly admits it aired pornography for 30 minutes on thanksgiving.

Synopsis of previous link:
1) A Twitter user in the Boston area reported that CNN was airing hardcore pornography for 30 minutes through local provider RCN.
2) Picked up by The Independent, a leading left-of-center newspaper based in the United Kingdom.
3) Subsequently many other media outlets including Variety magazine, the U.K. Daily Mail, the New York Post, Esquire magazine and Mashable, &c.
4) Eventually, CNN actually confirmed that it did air “inappropriate content” and was seeking an “explanation” from RCN.

Of course, nothing of the sort happened.

Mainstream media has a bit of a credibility problem, yah?