Slashdot Mirror

When Pennsylvania tried to enact a voter ID law the people who voted for it (all Republicans) openly stated they could not point to a single act of voter fraud. The best they could say was, "the number of voter fraud cases that are prosecuted are only a sliver of the fraud taking place because there is no system in place to detect fraud."

Which is a great work of circular reasoning. One can't show voting fraud has taken place but that's only because there isn't any way to detect it. If one can't detect voter fraud, how do you know it's taking place?

One of the biggest issues with PA's attempt was the person who did not have a driver's license had to travel to only a select few locations during certain hours and do this twice. Once to prove who they were then come back a second time to get their state-issued ID. All during regular business hours.

If you're on the bottom rung of life you need to work as much as you can and can't afford to take off work to prove who you are, twice, and if you're a senior citizen you may be dependent upon someone else to take you around because not everyone has a bus stop in front of their house.

PA's law was nothing but a blatant attempt to suppress voting.

And how does that negate my statement that you don't get to dictate what is morally right or wrong for others?

Civilized society has stopped labeling a lot of things that used to be seen as morally wrong because nowadays we realize it's nobody's business if nobody is getting hurt. This has got the bible-thumpers in a tizzy, because for the first time, they are seen as being morally wrong in trying to impose their views on others.

Don't like same sex marriage? Get over yourself. Don't like that transsexuals pee in the bathroom they want to pee in? Then YOU go use the handicapped single user bathroom. Still feeling dirty about watching gay porn? That's your problem - don't go around trying to mitigate your guilt by trying to make others feel guilty. Don't like women going around topless in public? Too bad - there are plenty of states and provinces where it's legal. Don't like women breast feeding in public? Turn yourself in to the local museum as a living fossil.

Not sure about "stoner", but he's certainly admitted he inhaled...
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10...

Now, before I write the rest of this, let me point out this comment I made earlier. I know full well that people, especially the media, lie about Trump and what he says a lot. They do misrepresent what he says. My dislike of him is - as far as I know - not based on those lies.

Wanting to ban Muslims from entering the country simply on the basis of their religion is pretty awful. That's listed on his website, so I hope you find that an acceptable source. It actually helps ISIS by giving them extra recruiting material - they love seeing blanket anti-Muslim statements, it gets them fighters and support. We can and should reject Islamism, but we should do it without blaming all Muslims, as well as without claiming it has nothing to do with Islam - Maajid Nawaz has an excellent article here.

His stance on NAFTA and free trade in general is not supported by most economists. He has no coherent economic worldview. He, for some reason, thinks a trade deficit is automatically a bad thing (see previous link to his website). On this page he claims he can "Reclaim millions of American jobs and reviving American manufacturing by putting an end to China’s illegal export subsidies and lax labor and environmental standards." How, exactly, he is going to change China's environmental standards is left to the reader. His plan to lower the corporate tax rate to 15% is potentially bad; it depends on how that's implemented.

Not something I find "particularly disagreeable", but merely baffling - "Crime— Homicides last year increased by 17 percent in America’s fifty largest cities. That’s the largest increase in 25 years. More than 2,000 have been shot in Chicago since January of this year alone. Donald Trump is the law and order candidate in this Presidential race." (under Section 5, titled "Other Reforms") - how does he plan on reforming "crime", in general?

And, of course, there's his ridiculous wall idea. Seizing the remittances earned by people working here is very disagreeable to me; that's effectively a large tax on people who are, generally, low income. That combined with the fact that a wall is unlikely to meaningfully impact illegal immigration make it a really bad idea.

Oh, and how could we forget that he wants to kill the families of terrorists. Killing someone just because they're related to someone else is never okay, especially if you intentionally make a policy out of it.

He wants to put ground troops in Syria to fight ISIS. America does not need another ground war, especially one that is so politically risky.

He also pledged to crack down on internet porn. Now,

Outside the Earth's magnetic field, radiation becomes the biggest buzz-kill. It's nasty out there. There's concern that even going to the moon and back exposes you to enough high-energy radiation to cause cardio-vascular disease. Mars could be lethal, not just in getting there, but also after you arrive, because Mars has no magnetosphere strong enough to provide a shield (Earth says, "you're welcome"). Any deep-space research has to solve this problem or manned missions will be a death sentence.

There are lots of deal breakers. Radiation is just one of them. Another is loss of atmosphere. Spaceships leak. The ISS has to get constant resupply of gas because the atmosphere is constantly leaking out into space. They could take more with them as supplies and no doubt will, but that just makes the entire thing heavier and harder to get there. There will have to be some significant work on seals and keeping atmosphere from escaping over the periods of time a Mars mission will take (at least 22 months) before they will be able to go. The process of building something capable of carrying at least four people to Mars will also probably need some improvements and then comes the question of moving it out of orbit and on it's way to Mars which will require some more engineering advances as it's not something we've ever done before. At least we hopefully have the living in zero-G thing worked out with study on various space stations. Still, the ISS is the most expensive human project ever, and a Mars trip will be looking at building an even higher tech one of those and then moving it out of orbit to Mats where there will be landers and then return to the station and Earth. There will be countless deal breakers out there and nobody is even really considering putting forth the money to get them done any time soon.

Clinton Uranium

Whats that? I listed the SAME STORY from your requested news source. Guess she is guilty since that is the bar you set.

However, I don't know how they've determined that. The only analysis I've seen was from the private security firm hired by the DNC to investigate after the attack.

There are several reasons why you'd only hear from the DNC itself and not the U.S. government. From the New York Times:

The assessment by the intelligence community of Russian involvement in the D.N.C. hacking, which largely echoes the findings of private cybersecurity firms that have examined the electronic fingerprints left by the intruders, leaves President Obama and his national security aides with a difficult diplomatic and political decision: whether to publicly accuse the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of engineering the hacking.

Such a public accusation could result in a further deterioration of the already icy relationship between Washington and Moscow, at a moment when the administration is trying to reach an accord with Mr. Putin on a cease-fire in Syria and on other issues. It could also doom any effort to reach some kind of agreement about acceptable behavior in cyberspace, of the kind the United States has been discussing with China.

What the media's running with: Trump is a secret agent taking orders from Putin who personally haxx0red the DNC and if you don't elect Hillary Clinton then Trump is going to take orders from Putin and invade Europe and/or nuke everyone.

The general consensus seems to be that the Russians consider him a useful idiot, not a "secret agent". He obviously isn't going to take orders from Putin, and Putin won't need to give him any. Trump has made it clear that he perceives NATO as some sort of protection racket that he might abandon like a failing casino. (As far as nukes, Trump says he "isn't going to take cards off the table", whatever that means.)

Outside the Earth's magnetic field, radiation becomes the biggest buzz-kill. It's nasty out there. There's concern that even going to the moon and back exposes you to enough high-energy radiation to cause cardio-vascular disease. Mars could be lethal, not just in getting there, but also after you arrive, because Mars has no magnetosphere strong enough to provide a shield (Earth says, "you're welcome"). Any deep-space research has to solve this problem or manned missions will be a death sentence.

Choosing a name at random: Admiral Jeremy Boorda.

According to whatreallyhappened.com:

Boorda supposedly went home for lunch and decided to shoot himself in the chest twice, using two guns, rather than be interviewed by Newsweek magazine that afternoon.

According to a New York Times article discussing Admiral Boorda's death:

Pentagon officials said Admiral Boorda, the Chief of Naval Operations and the first sailor to climb from the lowest enlisted ranks to four-star admiral, returned to his home at the Washington Navy Yard at about 1 P.M., grabbed a .38-caliber pistol, walked outside, rested the gun barrel against his chest and fired.

Newsweek magazine said in a statement that it had contacted Admiral Boorda earlier in the day to request an interview for "a story that called into question the military decorations" that he "had been wearing for years." A Newsweek correspondent was arriving at the Pentagon for an interview with Admiral Boorda "when the Navy learned of the shooting," the magazine said.

It isn't clear from either of these sites what, if any, involvement Admiral Boorda had with the Clintons outside of Bill Clinton being President at the time.

A Russian cyberattack that targeted Democratic politicians was bigger than it first appeared and breached private email accounts of more than 100 party officials and groups (could be paywalled; alternate source), reports The New York Times, citing officials with knowledge of the case. From the report:

New York times: invested majority stake by Carlos Slim with ties to obama and the Clinton foundation

The widening scope of the attack has prompted the F.B.I. to broaden its investigation, and agents have begun notifying a long list of Democratic officials that the Russians may have breached their personal accounts. The main targets appear to have been the personal email accounts of Hillary Clinton's campaign officials and party operatives, along with a number of party organizations. Officials have acknowledged that the Russian hackers gained access to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is the fund-raising arm for House Democrats, and to the Democratic National Committee, including a D.N.C. voter analytics program used by Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign.

DNC analytics is Groundworks from GOOGLE

Still trying blame the russians when its clear wikileaks is telling you something here.

This whole story is a political hit job written by a fully compromised media outlet. Gerbil and Stalin would be proud of the American Media at this point.

Feel Free to visit independent media and see whats going on. Youtube:

Drudge Report

Redacted tonight

infowars.com

The Jimmy Dore show

Paul Joseph Watson

The Young Turks are going all in for Hillary, avoid them till they get their heads out of their behinds.

Without regard to the rest of your comment - US universities, and specifically California schools (like Berkeley) go out of their way to take foreign students before US kids because tuition is so much higher for them. Follow the money. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

It's an interesting problem in ethics. An ethical university would not be expected to have a majority of foreign students, or anything close to a majority, in any program. I suppose an exception could be made for students from countries that have the same number of US citizens attending, to balance the number coming here.

As the right to ethical government, ethical practice of law, and ethics in business are all fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment, it's also an interesting example of breaking the law. It doesn't actually matter what the law of California says, since when laws come into conflict with the Bill of Rights, as the highest law in the land it always wins. The universities should have been doing the right thing all along, and the fact that they were breaking the law should result in people losing their jobs.

Of course, the publish-or-perish system is just as unethical, and hence just as illegal.

Parents sending their children to school have a right to expect that the instructors will be focused on educating them, but roughly 80% (in my experience) aren't doing their jobs, instead choosing to focus on research, as most of the pay and perks are vested in publication.

I doubt the ethics problem is unique to US schools. If anything, it's probably worse in most of the world.

However you might feel about people like "The Donald" keep in mind that he has not been bought and paid for by the cable industry. http://www.fiercecable.com/cab... Or the banks http://www.salon.com/2016/05/0... Or even the Russians http://www.nytimes.com/interac... She is just one candidate that you could choose not to support, I'm not suggesting you vote for "The Donald" but at least you're not voting for a criminal. Additionally look at where the vast majority of political contributions flow to and from before you cast your next vote for your local city and state officials. Tired of the government fucking you over? Stop asking them to do so with your votes. And yes, on this site, I expect this comment to be removed completely or down modded into oblivion because diversity of thought is not allowed.

Two words: Dwarf Fortress.

Nobody makes them like that, except Tarn Adams.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07...

If you run a TV commercial for a buffet restaurant and it shows a big pile of crab legs, but your buffet doesn't actually sell crab legs, you should rightly expect some legal trouble.

Depends. I imagine most such commercials will contain a disclaimer in the "fine print" that appears at some point saying "Actual availability of food items may vary by time and location" or something like that. After all, restaurants do run out of food sometimes, particularly at all-you-can-eat buffets. So unless the commercial identified the crab legs as a specific selling point, they may be in the clear.

But yeah, your point is taken. It really depends on expectations, though. If you were to believe dozens of beer commercials I've seen in the past few decades, drinking several brands of beer should cause bikini-clad women to just show up and form a party around you or something. Can beer companies be sued for false representation if that doesn't happen when I crack open a Miller Light??

Obviously a "reasonable person" would realize that such scenarios are not an implied part of the actual experience of drinking that brand of beer, unlike your buffet example where someone might understand that.

The question then becomes: what is "essential" to a movie trailer and what should a "reasonable person" expect in terms of how much a trailer and a movie should agree? The New York Times ran a story a few years back about how different the National Treasure sequel trailers were from the movie. That's a pretty extreme case. The trailer for the movie In Bruges implies that it's a hilarious comedy; it most certainly is NOT. (It's a very dark drama, which just happens to have a couple wisecracking characters, but the use of music and cutting in the trailer clearly implies a different genre.) A similar thing could probably be said for the trailer to Lost in Translation . And then there are trailers like the one for Comedian which doesn't represent the film at all.

Moreover, I think it's pretty common knowledge (or at least so it could be argued in court) that trailers are often cut long before the final edit of the film -- and frequently they are put together by people who have only a tangential relationship to the film. It's incredibly common for trailers to contain at least some minor scenes in editing that aren't in the final cut. So unless you could prove that there was deliberate misrepresentation going on (e.g., a memo from a studio exec saying, "I know the director doesn't want those Joker scenes in, but we should add the to the trailer anyway..."), I really doubt there's a serious case to be made here.

Without regard to the rest of your comment - US universities, and specifically California schools (like Berkeley) go out of their way to take foreign students before US kids because tuition is so much higher for them. Follow the money. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

As well you should have, and so should have every car owner have the means to get complete corresponding source code with build instructions. Software freedom gives car owners the means to help themselves and prevent more outbreaks of this ridiculousness as Eben Moglen pointed out when we saw the first round of this.

I don't even know what the fuck the problem was. If you don't want to go see the Ghostbusters reboot, don't go see it.

Men ARE from Mars.

And if you say you don't want to watch a Ghostbusters rema...rebo... restar... cynical cash grab then you are a sexist mysoginist buthurt baby child(?) salty regressive trans-hater.

You must also be one of those men (i.e. THE men) who sabotage female shows on imdb.
We know that cause you are pretending to ignore that "'The Angry Video Game Nerd,' a misogynistic web show whose sycophantic Wikipedia entry made me pine for hemlock in my coffee" even exists.
When it was after all, right there in the article featured right here.

BTW, all that was even before the movie which was promoted like this came out to fantastic reviews which keep talking about women and naysayers and ruined bro childhoods of little boys - and to a disaster at the box office.
Then again, The Nice Guys also had FANTASTIC reviews and yet it flopped... but the tone of the reviews is markedly different.

Now, take all that happening before the Twitter controversy and consider if there is perhaps a chance that the entire thing was blown out of proportion on purpose?
By a company known for faking reviews for marketing purposes.

I can't stand the KOS, but Primaries should be closed.

A frequently heard mantra - mostly after closed primaries helped Clinton - but it's not a justifiable one:

• 1) You can't hold an election at taxpayer expense and then tell taxpayers they can't vote in it unless they join your little club. It's a non-starter, but it's not the most brazenly arrogant attitude the party has. That would be:
• 2) Democrats have now spent the better part of 20 years screaming at everyone that will listen that independent Nader voters are responsible for Bush's election in 2000 - even if it's total bullshit. But it takes a Biblical sense of entitlement to tell those voters that they can't vote on a candidate in their primary, then savage them for not voting for their candidate in the general.
• 3) The two major parties are still the two major parties because they have colluded to exclude third parties on both a national and local levels. Which means, with few exceptions, that aspiring politicians must join the Dems or the GOP. Which means that the vote in the primary is just as important as the vote in the general election.
• 4) Being limited to candidates for one party limits a voters choices for ad hoc reasons. To go with #3, an otherwise right-wing voter in Pennsylvania who lost his job to NAFTA should not have been barred from voting for Sanders and against the pro-NAFTA-and-TPP Hillary. Just as an otherwise liberal hispanic voter should have been able to vote against Trump in the GOP primary because he's a flaming racist.

The party is selecting it's nominee, those not part of the party should not have any say.

Which would be a very reasonable position - if it was the nominee to chair the DNC. But not for the the President of the United States of America, who will represent all voters and the federal government.

When the various party nominee's then run for the office in question. At that point it's open to everybody.

Only after you've closed off access to the most meaningful vote. Republicans had 17 choices for president before the general election. The Democrats had half a dozen high-profile candidates to choose from in 2008 - only one this cycle, due to the corrupt party establishment clearing it for Hillary. Whereas independent voters are left with the functional choice of the two most incompetent, unpopular candidates in living memory - or "throwing their vote away" on a third party.

That, or join the corrupt and insular Democratic Party, or the corrupt and insular GOP.

Open primaries allow the other side to choose the weakest candidate. Had the first 10 or so primaries been closed Trump likely would not be the nominee.

Trump isn't a sign of a problem with open primaries. Trump is a sign that the right is as fed up with establishment politics of the left, and that the unhinged Bircher/NRA/Tebaggerization of the GOP has fully metastasized.

One guy hit 39. He ran 2 miles in less than 11 minutes 5 days a week as a warm up. I'll restate for the slow - BMI is meaningless.

There are two reasons you're wrong, both independent:

1. BMI is a predictor of body fat percentage not health or fitness, so saying "BMI is useless because here's a fit guy with a high BMI" is a complete non sequiteur. It also doesn't predict the price of gold. Doesn't make it useless.

BMI is not a predictor of body fat percentage. The fact that you can be 39 and be lean, or 20 and be fat indicates just how flawed BMI is as a predictor of obesity. The NIH and other respectable entities came to this conclusion after much study. Why are you arguing against them?

2. No one said BMI is a perfect predictor of obesity. The claim is it's 95% accurate for men.

You lack an understanding of exactly what was stated. BMI doesn't predict body fat percentages anymore than IQ predicts success. What it claims is that if BMI (IQ) states you're obese (successful) then there's a 95% chance it's correct, at least for the range of subjects studied. In the total pool of subjects, however, it misses an astonishingly large percentage of those that are obese, and it's still wrong, because it's only a correlation of 2 measurements that trend with the desired measurement but by themselves have no direct relationship to what you're trying to measure. If you want to measure body fat percentages, then measure those factors that give you that percentage. Height alone has no bearing in this measurement. If you included breadth and depth, and an accurate volume calculation, then you'd be getting somewhere, but that's impractical from a pure length measurement standpoint.

It's like taking height and adding it to IQ. CEOs (successful people) tend to be taller. (You're probably already getting the drift here)

If you have a BMI over 30 then you should definitely go and get yourself checked out somehow with another technique (a clue, if you can grab rolls of fat and you have a BMI of over 30 then hoo boy do you have weight to lose).

That is the use of BMI.

Your "clue" is a non-sequitor - if you can grab rolls of fat, it doesn't matter what your BMI is, you have weight to lose.

Your non-sequitor does lead to a different question: why not do the "pinch an inch" test? Then again, it's not very accurate either and prone to measurement error. It's still far more accurate than BMI will ever be. BMI is nothing more than a height / weight chart with designated lines on it. It's attempting to force everyone into a single "average" for lack of a better term. And we all know how all humans are average, right?

Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions.... if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions.

Less than 40 of the 3,864 contestants were average size on just five of the nine dimensions and none of the contestants — not even Martha Skidmore — came close on all nine dimensions.

But while Daniels and the contest organizers ran up against the same revelation, they came to a markedly different conclusion about its meaning. Most doctors and scientists of the era did not interpret the contest results as evidence that Norma was a misguided ideal. Just the opposite: many concluded that American women, on the whole, were unhealthy and out of shape.

You appear to fall into the contest organizers group. Also:

The B.M.I. tables are excellent for identifying obesity and

There were at least a couple lawsuits against Boeing for just that:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09...
http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/0...

Gun manufacturers actually have a law limiting their liability though:
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

Yes, elections are critical, but NO, DHS isn't the right people to try to make it any better.

Perhaps you are correct. DHS may not the right agency to take on this project. Who is? It is the nature of bureaucracy, governmental or not, to be inefficient, incompetent, and/or corrupt. There are many tools that we have which, if used, can potentially minimize the worst of it. That's the best we can hope for.

A big part of the problem is that the participation by the citizenry in the political process is too low to have significant impact where it matters (e.g. see NYT interactive graphic: http://www.nytimes.com/interac...). In other words, too many opt out of the process, so we end up with unpopular presidential candidates and too much apathy to properly hold our various agencies and officials accountable. Things deteriorate and then more people opt out. The cycle continues.

DHS might not be up to the task, but they are the logical ones to take jurisdiction. Give 'em the job, and if they fuck it up, give 'em hell. Unless the citizenry actually starts to care, however, it doesn't really matter.

Hillary is the racist but nice attempt at misdirection, you ignorant goose stepping fuck.

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

It is critical but

The big "but" is what laws would they enforce that are not well served today.

Voter fraud has yet to be shown to be a real problem.
Perhaps because all the metrics are measured by German VW engineering services.

The current laws on computer hacking make the breaches of HC and the DNC servers
totally illegal. But wait the hackers were from off shore and the US has no jurisdiction.

Flaws in systems and applications are not getting fixed because TLAs at times see their
knowledge of flaws a bits of power and are unwilling to disclose to vendors for repair.
  https://www.newamerica.org/oti...
Flaws that are seen as power by domestic TLAs are in fact national risks that need
prompt and aggressive repair. To some degree the Win10 roll out seems to be
a strong move to fix some issues but the anniversary update is changing some rules
that are effective contract issue from a year ago perhaps managed by John Deer and CAT.

In some cases the allegations are more politics than anything.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

No. I'm not surprised by this -- at least not the way YOU reference. I am totally surprised the media doesn't care.

That's a good point.

Well, it's okay to make derogatory comments about women & minorities if you're a Democrat. You can even put on a minstrel show and almost nobody bats an eye.

There was an interesting article about Japan's increasing number of abandoned homes due to the contraction of the population. One problem that this brings is that people who do want to live in their ancestral home or move out to the country, may not be able to get utilities provided, because it simply costs too much to maintain utility infrastructure for so few inhabitants.

There is also the issue of finding enough caretakers for the increasing elderly when the workforce is ever smaller. Unwilling to invite mass immigration, Japan has tried to invest in robotics in elderly care, but these efforts might not be enough.

Depending on which state they were in at the time it was recorded, remember that adultery is illegal in some states and can include jail time. In some states it's a crime without punishment and/or a cause for divorce without the expense of alimony.

A law that cannot be enforced is effectively not a law even if the legislature has yet to remove it from the books. Just as that deed restriction that says that you cannot sell your suburban home to people of color will neither be enforced nor serve to protect you from being charged with housing discrimination.

Lawrence v. Kansas put an end to adultery as a crime. Yes, it can still be a basis for divorce, but despite TMZ's best efforts, prospective divorces are not matters of public interest that justify the non-consensual publication of sex tapes and the like -- my proof: there's no adultery exception to anti-revenge pron laws.

• If Trump loses either Florida or Ohio, it's GAME OVER.
• No Republican has ever won the presidency without Ohio.
• The last time the Republicans won Pennsyvalnia was 1992.
• Even if Trump does win all three states, Hillary could still win the presidency with a handful of battleground states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-presidential-race.html

> and not just do something Congress did not envision with that law

Funny how the big corps had absolute no complaint back in 2002 when the FCC switched away from net neutrality. It went all the way to the SCOTUS who said it was the FCC's right to make that decision.

All that has happened here is that the FCC changed its mind and returned to the original classification. Which, frankly, was the obviously correct application regardless of net neutrality. So obvious that even Scalia realized the new classification was bullshit, calling it "an implausible reading of the statute."

That certain was an important decision, but the Bell System was still requiring customers to have expensive coupler equipment installed for many years afterwards (that article was from 1974). Those couplers involved transformers that would have made even 56k modems impractical, much less DSL.

For sure, where I lived, the Bell breakup was the dividing line, after which we were allowed to buy phones from someone other than the phone company. I still remember when we got our first non-Bell telephone, though I was a young kid at the time, and it was after Bell broke up. More amusingly, we weren't even in Bell territory; we were served by GTE. That's how wide-ranging the implications of the breakup were. It rocked the industry, and changed things pretty dramatically for the better.

Bribery of a government official who gives out favours from their position of power isn't a crime now? Or is it just another one of those "any reasonable prosecutor wouldn't prosecute"?

Short take on story...
Hillary took bribes, FROM RUSSIA, the evil empire that is now our mortal enemy since Trump mentioned them, and approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia. This was to benefit her and Bill's friends and they received a total of $145 MILLION in "donations" to their foundation for it.

Not sure what else she could POSSIBLY do to be more corrupt or would be more illegal for someone like the head of the State Department to do.

If you expected Sanders to be non-compromising, you clearly haven't done your research on him. The man has a solid track record of a pragmatic idealist - he has clear ideals that he strives to fulfill, but at the same time, he is perfectly able and willing to work with people whom he disagrees with, so long as it gets him one step closer to his goals. Look at what he did in Congress - constant scheming to add riders to bills. Go even further back, and look at what he did as a mayor.

And it's exactly what made Sanders such an awesome presidential candidate. Most "revolutionaries" dismiss incremental change outright. This guy realized that it's the only chance that he and his platform has, and mastered it. I actually put more faith in his ability to navigate through the gridlock in Congress as a president, than Hillary's. Alas...

Just going to leave this here...

Key sentence: "They voted the same way 93 percent of the time in the two years they shared in the Senate."

I ditched Microsoft software and solutions over a decade ago when an update they sent me wouldn't apply because the installer detected a OS/2 and Linux partition on my hard drive (which at the time I was a consultant needing to program solutions for all three platforms). Wait, what? I paid for your product and you won't update it because I make a living supporting alternate products? Go fuck yourself.

This is Sea Change moment for Linux. In the early 90's I watched IBM going from 80 percent market share down to 20/30 share. People stopped buying IBM and Microsoft was the winner of IBM's loss. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/20/business/ibm-posts-5.46-billion-loss-for-4th-quarter-1992-s-deficit-biggest-us-business.html This was due to IBM pushing MCA/PS2 etc. on a open market to reel in more profits. Yes, I was in a meeting for a fortune 500 company where the comptroller said, fuck IBM, were going Microsoft.

The Linux foundation along with RedHat, SuSE, Ubuntu need to get together (pool resources) and fix the minor issues still inhibiting total Linux adoption. Grandmothers want to easily show slideshows of the grand kids on their screen savers. Accountants want to use Quickbooks. Graphic designers want to use PhotoShop etc.

We haven't had hardware issues for years (in my experience). It's the little things that will prevent Linux adoption.

Sweden [] at the top of the list of countries that will not tolerate any prison labor.

Yeah, right.

Apple also funnels U.S. profits through a Nevada corporation to avoid paying taxes in California and other states.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/business/apples-tax-strategy-aims-at-low-tax-states-and-nations.html

They did roll it back. We were making progress for a couple of decades, but that's all undone now.

A link

As Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept reminds us, "Governments do spy on each other and do try to influence events in other countries, certainly the U.S. government has a very long and successful history of doing exactly that.". So hearing Americans, particularly Democrats, complain about Trump's request here reminds us the US has unclean hands and about far more important things than distracting us away from the ugliness the Democrats apparently sic on each other to win political races. Some of that increased ugliness includes voter shenanigans (possibly voter suppression) to make it harder for would-be Bernie Sanders voters to vote in the Democratic primary, collusion with news outlets to suppress unfavorable stories, and possible illegality from the DLC. These strike me as far more interesting considering the veracity of the DLC emails remains unchallenged.

The last thing the Democrats really want is people thinking about Hillary Clinton's voting record, or campaign funding sources. That analysis won't go down well with anti-war, pro-universal health care, pro-organized labor, anti-fracking, anti-TPP voters the Democrats seem to be losing. Such discussion might lead these voters to notice that the Democrats are apparently as interested as the Republicans in using a distractionary fear-based campaign against the only competition they're willing to admit to (no talk of Greens or Libertarians, for instance, people might defect or demand inclusive debates).

I don't recall any of those attacks being blamed on a youtube video by a Secretary of State and a President, let alone going after and investigating someone who made said video and using them as a scapegoat. Nor do I recall a Secretary of State lying to the families of those victims while telling people in private emails that it had nothing to do with a video.

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

Perhaps bold text can penetrate your thick skull. Once again, from the same 2014 article:

On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world. As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

The blaming a Youtube video part happened pretty fucking definitely.

This is from a New York Times article in 2014:

On the day of the attack, Islamists in Cairo had staged a demonstration outside the United States Embassy there to protest an American-made online video mocking Islam, and the protest culminated in a breach of the embassy's walls- images that flashed through news coverage around the Arab world.

As the attack in Benghazi was unfolding a few hours later, Mr. Abu Khattala told fellow Islamist fighters and others that the assault was retaliation for the same insulting video, according to people who heard him.

In an interview a few days later, he pointedly declined to say whether an offensive online video might indeed warrant the destruction of the diplomatic mission or the killing of the ambassador. "From a religious point of view, it is hard to say whether it is good or bad," he said.

No one who obsesses about Benghazi seems aware that during the George W Bush administration, there were 39 attempted attacks on U.S. embassies, 20 of which resulted in fatalities. The total death toll in those attacks was 87, including three confirmed to be U.S. civilians, and another 21 who worked at U.S. embassies or consulates and were either of American or foreign nationality.

The reason you might not have heard of those tragedies is that unlike Benghazi, no one exploited them for politics.

Yup. Let us find a candidate running for president who has most likely committed treason. Trump is the obvious answer. Right?

Welcome to Bizarro World, where the person who makes a joke about Russia hacking emails is a traitor, and a person who takes a bribe to supply uranium to Russia is a hero.

What's low about this is that the primary source they cite is Gawker.

Better?

University thing? You mean Trump University where he defrauded people to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? The University where employees were told to extract as much money as possible from people via high pressure sales tactics?

That's the University you're talking about, correct? The one run by the shyster.

University thing? You mean Trump University where he defrauded people to the tune of tens of millions of dollars? The University where employees were told to extract as much money as possible from people via high pressure sales tactics?

That's the University you're talking about, correct? The one run by the shyster.

But you'll still have to call him Mister President.

Story where she took bribes from Russia to approve the sale of 1/5 of US uranium to them.

So much for lack of factual support. Perhaps if you spent a minute looking you would have seen this, or the university thing where she took $16.5 million of taxpayer money for herself.

Fantastic! Now you can prove me wrong. Just find one person who did what Hillary did (mishandle classified data but with no intent to leak and with no data leaked) and is in jail, and you will prove me terribly mistaken.

Or, if you can't, then it will be clear that your hatred of Hillary is greater than your love of facts or fairness or patriotism, and that you will make anything up if it fits the narrative you wish were true.

How many cases would you like links to? Here is one from NPR that talks about David Petraeus who was indicted for mishandling classified data. He received one year of probation after pleading out. The same article mentions John Deutch, who was the CIA director under Bill Clinton. President Clinton had to grant him a pardon when he was facing indictment for "Improper handling of classified data." In fact, he basically did the same thing as Clinton - had classified data on a (government owned) computer at home. He was facing indictment because he didn't turn over classified material several days after leaving the CIA. How long did Clinton keep the classified data at her house? Oh and here's another Clinton aid mentioned in the same article: Samuel "Sandy" Berger who destroyed copies of classified data and then lied about doing so. Hmmm didn't Clinton do the same thing - only in her case it was to destroy evidence of wrongdoing? And then again we have Alberto Gonzales, AG under GW Bush. He was investigated just for storing material in a safe that non-cleared people had access to - inside the Justice Department office - though in this case there was no indictment. What about this Navy Engineer who was indicted and convicted for mishandling classified data with no intent to distribute it? This young sailor just took a picture on a submarine and then destroyed the evidence and was indicted and convicted. How about this Marine Corps Major who was dishonorably discharged after using personal email to send classified documents? And here is a lab tech who was prosecuted for taking classified material home from the office - again with no evidence of intent to distribute. How about an NSA Employee who was indicted for leaking material to the press? And a State Department Employeee indicted and convicted for taking classified material home. Are these enough references? Because it took me all of 30 seconds to find these news articles.

And what did the FBI basically say? She's too big to indict.

You have a rare talent, to interpret what people "basically" say. My poor brain can only handle what they "actually" say: "In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: [various bad stuff]. We do not see those things here."

How else can you interpret the comment that "No reasonable prosecutor would indict" when it was clearly a violation of the law and we can clearly see dozens of cases above where people were indicted for doing similar things, and in some cases, far less than Clinton? If they could not find cases of prosecution in events similar to hers then

Here's another story from the non-mainstream-media underground reporting outfit, the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

No, the NRA did not lobby to stop government research on gun violence.

According to the NYT, the NRA did lobby to stop government research on gun violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01...
N.R.A. Stymies Firearms Research, Scientists Say
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: January 25, 2011

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of âoeputting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,â said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.
Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was âoeredundantâ and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centersâ(TM) budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

The research into gun violence is under the purview of the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The federal agencies keep statistics on actual crime rates and don't try to force conclusions based on an uber-liberal bias.

According to articles in Science and Nature, researchers in gun violence say that the statistics gathered by the Department of Justice and FBI https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t... are worthless for epidemiological investigation into the important questions they want to answer.

For example, much of the statistical reporting is voluntary, which biases the result. And they don't give the identity of the victims or accused, or the reporting officer, as they do in auto accidents for example, so you can't take a sample of cases and track down the causes and associated factors, as that NEJM suicide study did.

When I used to research auto safety, I found many US and foreign studies of auto accidents which would give complete details on hundreds or thousands of accidents -- type of accident, damage to car, type of injury, vehicle speed, weather, cause(s) of accident, etc. From these studies they could figure out what was causing accident deaths and injuries and figure out how to prevent them. For example, they proved that seat belts saved lives, by about 50% or more, and 100% in certain kinds of accidents. Everybody was pretty sure that seat belts saved lives, but lobbyists from the US auto industry were denying it, and congress would't accept or require seat belts in US cars it until engineers published papers demonstrating it in 1967. The result was seat belt laws that saved about 25,000 lives a year. I also used to research medical device accidents, and the FDA had the same kind of reporting system.

In contrast, you can't use the DOJ and FBI statistics for that kind of analysis. Why do people kill each other? How many of those guns were legally bought and how many of them were illegally obtained? Where did they get the illegal guns from? You can't tell from that data.

I don't remember this much controversy when the Russians were giving millions to the Clinton Foundation to award them with a giant uranium deal. Don't shoot the messenger on this one. She is what she is.

Story about Clinton taking bribes for approving sale of uranium company to Russia while she was secretary of state.

Her claim: No foreign donations to her foundation while in State Dept, if any come up she will disclose and get a waiver first, any that do happen will be publically disclose and she will make sure no State Dept decisions will be based on them.
What happened: No disclosure, no waiver, not even reporting it on taxes. She attempted to keep it hidden from Obama, the public, and anyone else. Since this NYT story the total in bribes for this favor from her is $145 million, to her foundation. She had to amend her taxes because she lied on them and left this out.

Her running an email server is NOTHING. She is corrupt and takes bribes for government favors for her friends. If your only defense of her is name calling me, you are pretty pathetic.