Slashdot Mirror

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.

Story about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes.

Did you link to the right article? I see some bad things for her, but not the stuff you were talking about.

1) The foundation wasn't supposed to accept foreign government donations, she didn't. Though she may have taken donations from people who had connections to foreign companies with significant government ties.

2) The foundation was supposed to publicly disclose all the donations to the foundation, apparently this guy who donated, a Canadian, reported on his tax form that he made a bunch of donations that the foundation didn't publicly disclose. I don't know if this was a mistake, deliberate, or some kind of misunderstanding.

3) During this period Bill Clinton got a $500k fee to speak to a Russian bank.

4) There's nothing I saw there about hers or the foundation's taxes. I have no idea where you got the idea she hid something on her taxes.

All the bad looking stuff is Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation, accepting donations or work from people who had a connection to businesses who might be affected by the State Department.

As for "approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider". She was only one of multiple people who had a say on the approval. If anything her fighting it would have been the more unusual action.

I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal.

Because it's the only scandal, where after a critical investigation, there's evidence that she really did do something wrong.

Her problem is most politicians do everything they can to avoid the appearance of impropriety. The Clintons on the other hand, Bill in particular, don't really seem to care about the appearance because they think they'll be attacked regardless.

So you get stuff like this where Bill Clinton is constantly dealing with a bunch of people he should really be avoiding. I don't think Hillary was biased when it came to doing her job, but it does lead to some fishy optics.

https://www.thestar.com/news/w...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo...

These hospitals have only been deliberately attacked since the Russian air force arrived and since the U.S. is nowhere near where these attacks are taking place the only logical, unalterable conclusion is Russia is deliberately bombing hospitals.

Okay Russian trolls?

Story about how she received bribes for allowing Russia to buy 20% of the USA uranium production. She clearly stated how she wouldn't take foreign donations to her foundation while at state, would ask for a waiver to do it if it came up, and would disclose if it happened. She took the bribe, didn't ask for a waiver, didn't disclose it, and failed to report it on her taxes and had to amend them years later after she was caught. She showed "Intent" in hiding the donations because they were bribes. This isn't even questionable campaign donations, this is direct bribes to her for approving something the State Department wouldn't normally even consider.

I'm not sure why people bring up her email scandal. As bad as it was, it wasn't taking bribes from Russia for State Department favours while she was in charge.

How is she even possibly considered for the DNC nomination after this came out?

So, let me get this straight AC--

A country that imports more than it exports is "Great!" in your estimation, and pointing out that the actual quote from ricardo concerning his theory is as follows, with a little added emphasis of my own:

[blockquote]
"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them [b]with some part of the produce of our own industry employed in a way in which we have some advantage.[/b] The general industry of the country, being always in proportion to the capital which employs it, will not thereby be diminished ... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed with the greatest advantage."
[/blockquote]

Note, his thesis does not work at all when the bolded part is not met.

While the US does have the second largest export market, A significant proportion of the US's labor force is not tied to manufacturing or exports, most of it is service industry. Further, the manufacturing capacity of the US is currently struggling.

http://www.reuters.com/article...

Reuters attributes the low manufacturing performance to a high valued dollar, and low oil costs (globally)-- resulting in labor for manufacturing being too expensive in the USA-- THE EXACT THING WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, and that tariffs are intended to help avert.

Their opinion is not alone-- The economic policy institute has a rather lengthly report about it.

http://www.epi.org/publication...

To which they credit " nearly two decades of policy failures that have damaged its international competitiveness" as the primary causal factor behind the massive reduction in US manufacturing. What policy decisions have been enacted in the past 20 years? Various free trade agreements that removed trade tariffs.

It further states that manufacturing accounts for only 8.8% of the US's labor force. Meaning that most americans are not employed doing manufacturing, but in some other industry.

Yet somehow, despite the massively disproportionate segment of the US labor force that is allocated to service providing, industries seeking service workers (No, software is NOT a manufacturing job. it is a service job.) "Simply cannot find qualified applicants!" Perhaps we aren't training enough people to meet those needs? No-- the NYT seems to feel otherwise.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...

The costs of attaining a college degree are spiraling out of control, while the benefits of getting one diminish, due to labor force saturation. This is because there is out of control demand for college education, coupled with lackluster pay once it is attained. Basically, the service industry in the US does not want to pay for the education requirements it is demanding, and is leaving hopeful applicants holding the bag.

Instead, the service industry leadership wants only the cream of the crop, so to speak, of the potential applicant pool. It demands only the very finest caviar, and wants to pay cheesewiz prices. (Why not, it can get caviar for the price of cheezewiz elsewhere!)

This comparative difference in labor rates is ALSO controlled innately by tariffs, and prevents this kind of labor shopping-- at least as far as outsourced labor is concerned.

Now that I have buried you under a pretty substantively sized wall of text with some citations and opinion pieces by bonafide economists, perhaps you can be a little more forthcoming in how my interpretation of your rhetorical question is so clearly "Wrong", yes?

No. Obama would never tell Poland how it should run its country.

Oh shit
"We now have a continuous presence of U.S. troops in Poland with our aviation detachment at Lask Air Base...
I recognized that Parliament is working on legislation to take important steps, but more needs to be done.”"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

story explaining how she approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to Russia in return for massive bribes. Bribes she said she would not take while secretary of state, on a decision that she refused to recuse herself and department from because of the bribes, failed to disclose said bribes as she had promised before taking position, and failed to report them to the IRS meaning she had to amend her tax returns years later or be convicted of tax fraud (something you would have gone to jail for)

Not sure why you are being ignorant. She also funneled $55 million to Laurite university and got Bill $16.5 million of that taxpayer money in the process. Wonder why Trump University left the news so quickly? Its because of that story that he brought up for them mentioning his possible problem, and they aborted all news to prevent their outright illegal activity from becoming too public.

No, she is the most corrupt politician.

Unlike the DNC who supports a woman who made $143 million personally by approving a uranium sale to Russia.
story

It actually doesn't get more corrupt than that. Not only did she do it, she failed to disclose the "donations" and deleted emails that might incriminate her with the "smoking gun".

There is no one richer and more corrupt than Hilary, period. It completely baffles me that she is their nominee and people support her.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04...

Did you see the latest case of cops who found a thug out living the thug life, just thugging away and needed to get shot like a thug? I'm glad that guy's off the streets, who knows what thug stuff he gets up to in his thug time. I need to send those cops some flowers and congratulate them on the fact that police in this country have no problems with their training or behavior.

They mention this in an article on a company that fake NEC products. In some cases they had researched and developed their own original products and branded them NEC. It's an amazing story.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05...

She was helping run arms through Libya to arm ISIS against Syria at the time. Seeing as Chris Stevens was probably killed by one of those weapons, and how many are used against our troops there to this day, I would say treason is appropriate for her.

She also helped sell Uranium to Russia and got a $143million payday personally for it by directing the State Department to approve the sale. Once again, treason might be appropriate. story the $143 million total number came out after that story was written.

I don't think you fully understand how completely corrupt Clinton actually is.

There no longer is a USSR to annoy

Tell that to the Europeans :-) That's the thing, North America is entirely removed from their very real security concerns, energy, food, invasion. Before WW2, going back to ancient times the continent has always been at war. The feudal (nationalist) idealism still lingers to this day. We have our nice big oceans to protect us. You know what they say about bliss... And the sociopathy of the leaders is also very real. Whether they like it or not, they do depend on us to tamp it down a bit. That's why the Balkan wars didn't spread this time. And the Russians will never get past Ukraine again, if we don't drop our drawers. While Russia's economy remains a bit tattered, the NATO buildup on the Eastern Front is quite logical and even reasonable. And an unstable middle east serves our purpose of making sure the Russia doesn't get fat off the things we no longer need. And of course there is the elephant in the room, Hillary's legacy. You don't argue against that.

Contrary to popular opinion, both invasions of Iraq have really been at the UK's request. I obviously don't agree with them, but I do understand the reasons. The second one was a true "wag the dog" moment. Look into Blair's affair with Wendy Deng. Murdoch got his war. Yes, they do kill people to cover this kind of stuff up. Sociopathy is a dominant trait. It has to be when you make the decision to go to war. Theresa May answered the *big question* with a simple "yes" (I'll let you Google that), which, to tell the truth, is better than Corbyn's answer of total disarmament.

There are mad times.

This is incredibly interesting to me. Thank you for the link and details. I have self-defined free will as the ability to control your own brain. Or, another way to put it is, not the ability to affect and change the outside world, but the ability to choose your internal worldview, moods, thoughts, and to change the landscape of your experience, and thereby control the habits, actions, and how existence occurs to self (the experience of experience.) The application of recursion to experience: the self experiencing the self experiencing the self.

There is an amazing amount of automation, habits if you will, that your brain is great at performing without conscious thought (Check this article out for a primer on habits and how they relate to conscious thought: NY Times.) There are also many thoughts that are circulated in the mind that are simply reflexive, a product of a though generating meat-machine (see cognitive behavioral therapy for details.) Gaining control over these reflexive habitual actions and thoughts is what I see as a demonstration of free will. You will continue to have reflexes and habits for life. That's just how your mind/body works. It is the control of these things, the self-administered reconditioning as a result of examination and resolve, that shows the exercise of free will.

Another way to consider this is: What mechanism is responsible for an addict that stops using? In light of the structural and neuro-chemical deficit I and other addicts are operating from, where does that ability to simply stop come from? Definitely not the part of the brain that is already compromised and abnormal. It is responsible for perpetuating addiction. I posit that free will is as inherent to the human mind as recursion is to linguistics, and they are both part and parcel of the same complexity payload that generates both sentience and consciousness in our brains. Through structured self-experience of the self we can gain access to generate wholly new actions and patterns in our own operating medium, specifically the structural and neuro-chemical pathways in our own brains.

It has nothing to do with GPS or GLONASS. It's because Pokemon Go (like Ingress) uses Google Maps data, and Google Maps data is less specific in South Korea due to national security restrictions. (2, 3, and this Reddit thread about why Ingress doesn't work in South Korea)

Since Pokemon Go features are tied to map data on roads, landmarks, and buildings, and South Korean maps don't have that data, Pokemon Go doesn't work... except in Sochko, which as a quirk of the grid system is exempt from the data granularity restriction.

I have no idea.

Yes, corporations are hoarding. American businesses were hoarding around $2 trillion as of the time this article was written: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...

And when it isn't in an active investment of their own, its in a bank account earning interest.

A measly amount of interest, not enough to even beat inflation. Comparatively, it's not much of an investment.

It sucks to reach adulthood during a deep recession. Not sure it makes sense to use that as a predictor of the future though.

It does, though. College students who graduate into a recession earn 10% less starting out and their salaries don't recover to "normal" salary levels for a decade or more, at which point they're at a huge standard of living disadvantage because of the time value of money.

Think about it: that 10% is at the margin. It's the difference between being able to save for a down payment on a house (which in turn would lead to building wealth by accumulating equity) versus being condemned to being a long-term renter. Or the difference between starting to save for retirement in your 20s versus starting in your 30s. Or the difference between having an emergency fund versus having an unexpected emergency cause a spiral of debt leading to bankruptcy.

If that costs $3Bn, why don't we just cut it down to 9k and cure world hunger? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06...

JFK's election in 1960. Daley handed Chicago over to Kennedy. On a silver platter.

Hmm. From slate article that one doesn't even seem clear cut, but even if it was, would not the guilty party be a guy and those in his organisation?

I suppose the real question, was there really any evidence of masses of people pretending to be dead people and voting twice? That kind of conspiracy is basically impossible to keep secret. I can buy corrupt officials influencing tallies, and maybe, if they were clever they could use be subtle enough to shift some results without being noticed, but this doesn't really seem to be a problem purging voter rolls is going to fix, although again, purging people that are really dead is fine with me. We just need the controls not to screw it up and of course it shouldn't occur right before an election, but rather right after they actually die.

The vote fraud the concerns me are as follows:
1) First anything that can be done to change the tallies in subtle ways, particularly with voting machines without an audit trail.
2) The hyperpartisan gerrymandering. gerrymandering
3) indirect voting fraud such as conspiring to limit voting machines or purge rolls right before an election, while at the same time making it harder to fix the mess.

but yah, if anyone actually commits voting fraud, I say prosecute them. The actual problem appears to be rare. vote fraud rare

Incredibly, Congress passed the first comprehensive overhaul of chemical regulation in 40 years.

As an European I haven't been following all the details, but if I am not mistaken, Trump is actually relatively supportive towards gays (especially if compared to others within Republican party) even if he does not support recognizing gay marriage at the moment. There was story about this issue on New York Times:

Donald Trump's More Accepting Views on Gay Issues Set Him Apart in G.O.P.

Strangely, she doesn't care about campaign donations

Clinton is more into DIRECT money given to her. In this case, I have read that $143 million total was given to her charity (where 90% is used for salaries and "administration" which is slightly higher than reality but not by much). Her claim was they gave her that money before she was secretary of state, but it looks like that statement was a lie. She got that money and then quickly had the state department approve the deal they were after.

Really, how is she actually a presidential candidate?

[...] there's lots of research showing that the regularly recommended starvation strategies actually lead to no benefit over time or even weight gain because of the body's permanent decrease in metabolic rates.

The NY Times had a great article on the study of a group from The Biggest Loser TV show, where their metabolism actually slowed down enough to require significantly less calories and they gained weight on a recommended diet for their height and age.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

I sometimes wonder if that's my current situation. When I asked for a ten-speed bicycle for my 17th birthday, my father told me it was of money as the bicycle sit in the garage. I then spent the summer riding that bike everywhere (including a 36-mile trip in one day) and losing 70 pounds. As an young adult, I rode 20 miles per day to a restaurant job for three years.

...because the goal is to be the first to produce an AI capable of replacing a human driver. Autonomous ground vehicles are a potentially lucrative space. The demand is already there; first to get a product into the space is going to clean up. Elon Musk knows this, and Eric Schmidt at Alphabet (Google's parent company) knows it as well.

The handoff problem is the number one challenge facing autonomous vehicle developers. Schmidt and Musk are trying to solve it, and it is only the approach to solving it that differentiates them.

Schmidt is lobbying hard to get the laws in the US changed to allow him to take the driver out of the loop, because the engineer running Schmidt's autonomous vehicle R&D, Chis Urmson, believes the handoff problem is unsolvable.

Musk, otoh, doesn't see any problem as unsolvable. He is willing to continue pushing for a solution, and that means continuing to use data from the real world use of the Tesla AI. Musk knows that this is a risky strategy.

Consumer Reports seems to agree with Schmidt's engineer. The last several paragraphs are a discussion of exactly why the handoff problem is, well, a problem. CR is advocating a very conservative approach to developing and marketing autonomous vehicles, because the handoff problem is too much for an AI to handle, and keeping humans safe is a big part of what CR is about.

Musk knows he's going to face litigation every time a Tesla is involved in a crash. He's prepared for that, because the payoff is enormous.

No, Iran contra was half a dozen years later. Do you idiots even wiki this shit?

The scandal was revealed later. The Reagan administration started trading arms for hostages somewhat earlier (exactly how much earlier depending on which sources you think reliable). Their public posture was "no negotiating with hostage takers." Their private position, however, was "do anything it takes to avoid major public relations failure, so keep all negotiations with hostage takers secret."

There are people who say that the Reagan administration was negotiating arms to Iran as early as 1980-- here, for example: www.nytimes.com/1991/04/15/world/new-reports-say-1980-reagan-campaign-tried-to-delay-hostage-release.html

This is sometimes called the "October Surprise Conspiracy Theory":
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_Surprise_conspiracy_theory

There are many problems that cannot be solved with the app. Not the terrorism.

This app was a scam by design: there are little benefits of knowing of attack 15 minutes after it took place.

Reality is that the app was just another project to skim money from government, like they have skimmed thousands of times before that. Remember the $2 million app that randomizes whether to go to left or to the right? Reality is that once money have been consumed, those who made profit moved on and they no longer care. Also, reality is that you cannot buy complete security for the amount of resources is limited, yet security risks are infinite. If the app gets sued it will eventually become clear that the app cannot be litigated and has no responsibility to notify you, as decided by the courts http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06...

Reality is that the attacker was stopped by the first man with a firearm.

Reality is that automatic and semi-automatic gun ownership just got another solid, not even a theoretical card, to use when defending the gun ownership from nutty gun fearing zealots. Reality is that a single semi-automatic rifle would have been extremely effective in stopping the madman in Nice attack.

And no. Let's not ban the trucks.

Didn't Rasmussen predict a Romney win in 2012? Here's some data on the polling in 2012.

You sure about that?

You might want to go look up a company called Takata. Which has tens of millions of airbags recalled.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05...

http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Have a look for yourself. A typical sample (this is when the problem is already identified and starting to cause issues):

"Detroit’s water system offers to reconnect to Flint, waiving a $4 million connection fee. Three weeks later, Flint’s state-appointed emergency manager, Jerry Ambrose, declines the offer."

A month later the governor denies that there is any risk to human health (yeah ... he did *nothing* wrong)...

Get out of your bubble - the world you live in doesn't exist, the real world has literally nothing in common with it. The 'facts' you believe are not true and the people you believe are liars.

Blacks are LESS LIKELY to be shot by police than whites:

In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

Ooops.

Blacks are LESS LIKELY to be shot by police than whites:

In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

Ooops.

He was a fucking congressman in the 90's for god sake

Oh, that's a good point. So was Charles Rangel. Oh, wait, he still is a Congressman, unlike Mr. Duke.

Now, unlike Duke, Representative Rangel's was cited for 11 ethics violations — yet Hillary Clinton not only wouldn't "repudiate" him upon learning of his endorsement, she actively campaigned with him in NYC.

But, at least, for all his faults and crookedness, Charles Rangel does not seem to be a racist personally. Unlike Al Sharpton, for another example — who is as bona-fide anti-Semitic as one can get in America. The riots he encouraged and personally participated in led to an actual killing of at least one man. And yet, Hillary Clinton not only welcomed Al Sharpton's support this year, she gave a speech at his organization.

A well deserved storm because it's not often that presidential candidate defends probably the most famous racist in the country

Maybe, if Trump went to give a speech at a KKK-organized conference — and campaigned together with Mr. Duke on the streets — it would've been comparable... As things are, you can't even see your own hypocrisy jumping in front of you and screaming into your ear...

Only if you're at least in the top 5%. For everyone else, living paycheck-to-paycheck, the bills are getting higher and the paycheck isn't getting any bigger.

Now you're talking about a trend that's been going on for 30 years, since Ronald Reagan.

Trickle down is gonna trickle down, and we're all trickling down.

But the economy is still growing and still not in a recession.

Two things have happened since Obama took office: He did nothing to reverse that trend, in fact it has accelerated (and that according to the New York Times). The other thing that happened is further tweaks to the "official" economic numbers - they are hiding a lot of inflation. If you calculate it the same way they did in the past, the GDP would have grown even slower or shrank in some quarters.

Well, this time the State Department Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation did the investigation, not Republicans, and they did find a few damn things.

You must have missed the House Republican Benghazi report that cleared Hillary of any wrongdoing, as previous investigations have already proven.

Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/29/us/politics/hillary-clinton-benghazi.html

False.

I'm sorry, but of course it's true. Most people in the US, in the UK and in the world live in cities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07...

http://www.un.org/en/developme...

http://www.census.gov/newsroom...

Because I like you guys, I'm gonna do you a solid and save you all kinds of tsuris later on. There will not be self-driving cars in any of our lifetimes. Yes, we will have something like super cruise control and driver assist, but no, you will never be able to call for your robot Uber to pick you up and drive you to your part-time job. It's just not going to happen. And finally, the people who know most about "driverless" cars are starting to come clean:

The most realistic industry projection about the arrival of autonomous driving comes from the company that’s done the most to make it possible. Google, while never explicitly saying so, has long intimated that self-driving cars would be available by the end of the decade.

In February, though, a Google car caused its first accident; a bus collision with no injuries. A few weeks later, Google made a significant, if little-noted, schedule adjustment. Chris Urmson, the project director, said in a presentation that the fully featured, truly go-anywhere self-driving car that Google has promised might not be available for 30 years, though other much less capable models might arrive sooner.

Historians of technology know that “in 30 years” often ends up being “never.” Even if that’s not the case here, if you’re expecting a self-driving car, you should also expect a wait. And so you might want to do something to pass the time. Maybe go for a nice drive?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...

Yes, you read that right. The project director for "self-driving cars" at Google just added 25 more years to his projection on when you're going to see them. And as the writer points out, most of us know that any tech prediction for 30 years down the road always ends in tears. If you go back 30 years, they were predicting tech that never showed up and mostly totally missed on the most important tech advances that did show up.

Now I don't have a particular interest one way or the other regarding self-driving cars, except this: I don't want to see one dollar in public funds spent to develop this technology or to create infrastructure for a self-driving fleet until we've made actual public transportation affordable and viable, the way it was early to middle last century before Standard Oil and GM conspired to destroy public transportation in the United States (and yes, they were even convicted of doing so in court). So go ahead, Google and Elon and Tim Cook and all the visionaries. Make your self-driving golf carts all you want. Just don't ask for a dollar of taxpayer money, especially not until you start paying your taxes.

http://www.whale.to/b/street_c...

http://www.baycrossings.com/Ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Recall that suicides among 70 year olds wouldn't affect this.

http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes...

Among Americans of all ages, 12.4 per 100,000 take their own lives each year, according to 2010 statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But among those over 65, the official number is 14.9, and suicide may be under-reported.

You do the exact same thing you SHOULD do if you suspect someone has a gun, tell them to freeze and then to slowly raise their arms above their head.

Then if they're black you fire a few warning shots into their chest.

Unfortunately, that's what US police are being taught.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

American cops are taught differently [theguardian.com]

Actually, American cops are taught differently. They are taught to shoot before there is any threat. We saw it happening last week in Baton Rouge and Minnesota.

Meet Dr William J Lewinski. He is a "researcher" and expert witness for police departments, and he's getting police officers killed by teaching them to execute Americans.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015...

Here's a link to a story written from a more neutral point of view:
http://www.nytimes.com/1985/05...

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback. I think the police deserve the benefit of the doubt, both in Philadelphia and in Dallas. Not carte blanche, but benefit of the doubt.

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

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

millions of my tax money to uncover a blowjob

Now, for the umpteenth time, that was spent to prove, Clinton lied under oath. The proof was successfully secured and Clinton was punished for that perjury.

claiming that the FBI is an integral part of the conspiracy

You aren't citing any such claims, so they probably have not been made. It is quite obvious, however, that FBI was leaned on — likely by the White House.

you hate Hillary, so she needs to go to jail.

She needs to go to jail for mishandling classified information. FBI's report stated, she did it — suck it up, cupcake, while the rest of us are sucking up the sorry reality, that laws are for "little people".

And that Benghazi was the worst incidences ever [...]

We had problems with embassies before, but only after Benghazi was the Secretary of State lying to the public and Congress about it. Any I mean "lying" as in "knowingly telling an untruth".

We hate her — and you should too — for this lying. Her dishonesty is so bad, NY Times, of all publications, called her a "congenital liar" in 1996 — twenty years ago! Do you suppose, she improved with age?

Addendum regarding classified markings versus classified content.

NYT: "A search of the emails released by the State Department turned up two of those, both memos from one of Mrs. Clinton's aides, Monica R. Hanley, preparing her for telephone calls with world leaders. The State Department on Wednesday argued that those markings were, in fact, included by mistake."

http://www.nytimes.com/live/ja...

As I interpret it, the markings were included by mistake (according to SD), but that doesn't necessarily mean classified info was also included by mistake. The presence of markings and the presence of classified info could be different issues. There's nothing that forces bundling of both; they are not like entangled particles per quantum physics.

There is no reason to interpret that statement widely by default. Innocent until proven guilty.

I don't know, but apparently she didn't even ask. It seems like other people at the State Department - career people there, I guess. Probably a panel of some sort.

We're sorry.

While we would like to go off on this tangent, we're not able to participate because we are still investigating Obama's birth status and stuff.

hey, remember when the bushies outed valerie plame? yeah, there was sure a lot of republican determination to get to the bottom of that breach of security, wasn't there?
but I am definitely waiting for trump's operatives in hawaii to reveal that unbelievable information he told us they were digging up. oh wait, what's this?
"Dr. Alvin Onaka, the Hawaii state registrar who handled queries about Mr. Obama, said recently through a spokeswoman that he had no evidence or recollection of Mr. Trump or any of his representatives ever requesting the records from the Hawaii State Department of Health." http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07...
whaaat? how can that be?

On July 3rd (2 days before Lynch's subordinate Comey let Hillary off the hook), the New York Times reported that "trial balloon" being floated right in all of our faces:

"Democrats close to Mrs. Clinton say she may decide to retain Ms. Lynch, the nation’s first black woman to be attorney general, who took office in April 2015."

The corruption is truly on steroids when it's this bold and explicit.

Remember: Mrs Clinton has certified UNDER OATH both to the US Congress (in the Benghazi hearings) and to a federal judge (in the Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit) that she had turned over all her government-related e-mails to the State Department, something the FBI has now publicly certified as FALSE. The feckless moron Paul Ryan as House Speaker should do something about this, but he cannot because he gave away all his bargaining chips last year and is far too busy helping the GOP establishment snipe at trump. The Judicial Watch people are far more intelligent and will likely not let go and demand sanctions - they have proven far more dangerous to Hillary and far more substantial than the surrender monkeys in congress.

What most here do not know is that Loretta Lynch used to work for the law firm that represents Hillary (making Lynch a former Hillary servant). You could see the announcement here except that as you can see it has now been scrubbed.

The corrupt of BOTH parties prefer to wallow in the corruption together like pigs in a sty, protecting each other and only pretending to be opponents as needed to fool the rubes in "fly over country" (places where all the "little people" who do not matter live, in between NYC and Los Angeles). This is why Democrats in DC will support Hillary no matter what, even when Bernie was available and supposedly was more-faithful to the ideal of the modern Democrat party. This is also why the Bushes and the Romneys and plenty of Republicans in DC are hostile to Trump and open to either actively supporting Hillary or just actively opposing the nominee of their own party who won the nomination even under the rules THEY wrote.

Have you forgotten the Chinese donations to Bill Clinton, just before he approved the transfer of satellite technology to the Chinese? Citation Bill Clinton also threw the Arkansas taxpayers and environment under the bus to further his political career. Citation

Condi Rice and Colin Powell are Republicans. They're tough on national security dontchaknow, so they get a pass for all of the instances of confidential emails in their accounts...

Besides, when Hillary did it, she used a private email server; when Powell did it, he used a hotmail account, which is much more secure!

They also no longer sell Huawei devices to their customers.

The latter is likely tied to their accusations of industrial espionage and theft by Huawei employees: Possibly paywallled NYT article.

So there's no love lost between the two companies.