Slashdot Mirror

When you implement rent controls, there's very little incentive to build more housing. It's the type of policy that most economists agree is a bad idea and it's little surprise that it distorts the market and causes all manner of ill adverse side effects.

You honestly can't expect anyone sane to build new housing when laws mandate that it be a poor investment. At that point you end up with the only solution being government funded public housing projects, but those have a lot of stigma attached to them.

Facebook has three classes of shares:

Class A-- held by most of the public, one vote per share
Class B-- held by company insiders, ten votes per share
Class C-- to be issued in the future, zero votes per share.

This structure will allow Zuckerberg to issue as many shares as he wants, without diluting his ownership of the company.

source

The article may simply cite a third party, but Thiel did admit it in an interview.

So, what you're saying is that you have evidence that a drug manufacturer's advertisement is criminally fraudulent, and therefore we should not allow anyone in that line of work to spend money promoting their businesses, and instead they should put all of their money into research on new drugs until they run out of money, at which some other person who knows you won't allow them to advertise will of course invest billions of dollars in the same area because even though they're smart enough to come up with new drugs that you personally can't produce, they're too dumb to realize you want them to fail, financially. Do you even listen to yourself?

Oh, you want to see documented instances of misconduct in by pharmaceutical companies?? Try here for all sorts of legal settlements, you can review their specific conduct in the settlement agreements. What, did you think nobody's ever caught them misbehaving before? Hardly. And even aside from legal settlements, other investigations exist that do bring up a share of worries. And no, their questionable conduct isn't just limited to questionable marketing, there have been other problems.

As I said, you don't want to examine their conduct in its full scope, you want to avoid even considering the questions. Unfortunately for you, others have already.

That you present this hysterical idea of an absolutist sentiment as an objection just makes you sound silly, and what causes you to say such a silly thing, I don't know, but I'm guessing it's something in your own psyche. Of course, there are other options, for example, Europe does forbid DTC marketing of drugs, and the various companies don't seem to be suffering unduly there. So your idea? Yours, not mine. You made it up, not me, thus you are the one who should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you said it. Why did you say it? How did you think I'd react? Well, my reaction is that I hold you responsible for your own words. You said it, not me.

You may want to try to inform yourself better. You need to correct a lot of insufficient awareness of actual circumstances and improve your ability to recognize what others are saying. After you do that, then you can really work on your presentation.

So, what you're saying is that you have evidence that a drug manufacturer's advertisement is criminally fraudulent, and therefore we should not allow anyone in that line of work to spend money promoting their businesses, and instead they should put all of their money into research on new drugs until they run out of money, at which some other person who knows you won't allow them to advertise will of course invest billions of dollars in the same area because even though they're smart enough to come up with new drugs that you personally can't produce, they're too dumb to realize you want them to fail, financially. Do you even listen to yourself?

Oh, you want to see documented instances of misconduct in by pharmaceutical companies?? Try here for all sorts of legal settlements, you can review their specific conduct in the settlement agreements. What, did you think nobody's ever caught them misbehaving before? Hardly. And even aside from legal settlements, other investigations exist that do bring up a share of worries. And no, their questionable conduct isn't just limited to questionable marketing, there have been other problems.

As I said, you don't want to examine their conduct in its full scope, you want to avoid even considering the questions. Unfortunately for you, others have already.

That you present this hysterical idea of an absolutist sentiment as an objection just makes you sound silly, and what causes you to say such a silly thing, I don't know, but I'm guessing it's something in your own psyche. Of course, there are other options, for example, Europe does forbid DTC marketing of drugs, and the various companies don't seem to be suffering unduly there. So your idea? Yours, not mine. You made it up, not me, thus you are the one who should look in the mirror and ask yourself why you said it. Why did you say it? How did you think I'd react? Well, my reaction is that I hold you responsible for your own words. You said it, not me.

You may want to try to inform yourself better. You need to correct a lot of insufficient awareness of actual circumstances and improve your ability to recognize what others are saying. After you do that, then you can really work on your presentation.

I don't think either of us have been hiding under a rock for the past several years.

http://www.businessinsider.com...

I read that article but no-where does it blame men.

Are you serious? Male dominated "culture" must change or else women will not enter the culture. As Thinkprogress.org states:

"There is also persistent discrimination against women who enter the science and math fields. CTI’s study found that almost a third of “senior leaders” in STEM fields think a woman would never be able to reach top jobs at their organizations. A part of this surely comes from a general societal bias against women in those fields. Previous research has shown that even STEM professors doubt the ability of their female students. Biases against women in STEM start when they’re young girls and can become so ingrained as to actually make the girls worse at the subject. http://thinkprogress.org/econo...

So anyhow - who is doing this discrimination -the Flying Burrito Pug?

As well, they are far more likely to get into STEM if the classrooms do not have male type art on the wall:

Over and over, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues have found that female students are more interested in enrolling in a computer class if they are shown a classroom (whether virtual or real) decorated not with “Star Wars” posters, science-fiction books, computer parts and tech magazines, but with a more neutral décor — art and nature posters, coffee makers, plants and general-interest magazines.

So men need to stop putting things that offend women on the walls. A Star Wars poster can keep them out of tech.?!?!

As well, the Barbie in a T-shirt and jeans might j8ust backfireon Mattel because yup, you guessed it, a person in jeans can apparently keep a young woman out of a STEM career. to wit:

In another experiment, Dr. Cheryan and her colleagues arranged for female undergraduates to talk to an actor pretending to be a computer science major. If the actor wore a T-shirt that said “I CODE THEREFORE I AM” and claimed to enjoy video games, the students expressed less interest in studying computer science than if the actor wore a solid shirt and claimed to enjoy hanging out with friends — even if the T-shirt-clad actor was another woman.

So it appears that the t-shirt barbie is wearing will actually be counterproductive. Girls don't like other girls in t-shirts

Here is the article cited. It unabashedly blames males, and for things like -- almost everything about them. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10...

To make up the list for the tl;dr crowd, what really keeps women out of STEM:

Star wars posters in the classroom

Science fiction books

computer parts

tech magazines

T-Shirrt on men or women with anything technical on them.

pop culture portrayals of scientists as white or asian men.

Guys drinking beer when you don't

This sounds so ridiculous that people should doubt my veracity, but its right there in the article. One of the most damning things on this list is "computer parts. If seeing computer parts keeps a woman out of STEM, just what on gawds green earth is she going to do when she sees on where she works? It is exceptionally difficult to work with computers when seeing one makes you quit working with them.

By the way, there is an easter egg in the second article, a one sentence paragraph that kinda sums it all up. Let's see if you find it.

I think you are reading too much into this. These people are not blaming men, not blaming 50% of the population. They are identifying institution

Here's an example. Suppose you smoke marijuana at some point. Your doctor asks you about that and mentions it on your medical record, because it's clearly health-related, significant and part of a good medical history.

20 years later, you have knee surgery and you're left with severe, intractable pain. The only thing that controls it is opioid drugs. Your doctor looks at your medical record and sees that you have a history of marijuana use. There are "risk scales" that define that as "drug abuse" (for example, the opioid guidelines of the Texas Medical Society). So instead of simply treating your pain with enough opioids to control the pain, your doctor makes you sign a "pain contract" which requires you to take regular drug tests, and has the provision that he can abandon you and expel you from his practice if you fail a drug test or violate any of the other provisions in the pain contract. Instead of controlling your pain down to 2 on a scale of 10, he only controls it down to 5 or 6 on a scale of 10, and leaves you to suffer in pain. These are the actual provisions of "pain contracts," and a history of marijuana use in your medical record can cause a doctor to define you as a drug abuser, and make it difficult or impossible for you to get drugs to control your pain.

http://journalofethics.ama-ass...
Veterans Health Administration Policy on Cannabis as an Adjunct to Pain Treatment with Opiates
Michael Krawitz
AMA Journal of Ethics.
June 2015, 17(6):558-561.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03...
Patients in Pain, and a Doctor Who Must Limit Drugs
By JAN HOFFMAN
New York Times
MARCH 16, 2016

Your medical record contains information about all kinds of aspects of your personal life.

For example, a good medical history would include information about your sexual practices. In some states, normal teenage sexual behavior would be a felony, and some anti-abortion prosecutors have subpoenaed medical records of teenage girls who got abortions, and women who had late-term abortions, in order to find somebody to prosecute. http://www.slate.com/articles/...

Two-thirds of customers who challenge credit card fraud, improper fees or late charges lose in binding arbitration. All of this arose when the 1925 Federal Arbitration Act was extended to consumers and employees in 1985.

By the way, Google and Comcast force their employees to sign binding arbitration agreements. Now you know who you're dealing with.

Odd, it's difficult to get a gun in France, as well... yet...

Exactly.

It's difficult to get a gun in France so there are dramatically fewer mass-shootings per capita in France compared to the USA.

Thanks for a good example that reinforces my point.

Last year's Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States.

Source:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

Well...I suppose they could do something radical and say, try to educate/better themselves and get a fucking JOB and pay their own way, no?

Real unemployment (as measured by taking the inverse of the labor participation rate) is at levels not seen in this country since the great depression. Last year a net million jobs were created, yet the number of people seeking employment (unemployed or underemployed) did not change. The fact is that there are no jobs, especially for the barely educated. Your two year college degree might get you a job flipping burgers. A four year degree might get you a job managing the guy flipping burgers.

If you want a job flipping burgers today, you need a law degree. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

States were forced to lower speed-limits and otherwise alter their own laws

Nobody was forced to do anything, in fact, when Reagan signed the Highway Trust Fund in 84 and made federal spending dependent on states setting their drinking age to 21, Louisiana held out and paid for their own roads for well over a decade. Eventually they decided that the money was more important than whatever it was that had convinced them the drinking age should be 18.

Male students applying for financial aid were forced to register with Selective Service

The law requires that ALL males register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday, whether they're going to college or not. You had to prove you were following the law to apply for financial aid. (Hmmmm, that sounds awfully like proving you're not a crack addict to get housing assistance?)

Retirees applying for Social Security where forced to also switch to Medicare

That's true. My boss recently hit 64 and was forced at gunpoint to stop paying $800/mo for his own personal BCBS insurance with a $2000 deductible covering just himself and start paying about $170/mo (since he still makes money, he can't get the base premium or even the medicaid-subsidized premium) for a plan with a $166 deductible. The government was really twisting his arm on that decision.

The military works for us, not visa-versa

We did not elect Hiliary Clinton, we elected congress.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03... http://www.theatlantic.com/pol...

Specifically, Assange revealed the leaked emails show that she overrode the Pentagon's reluctance to overthrow sovereign Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and that "they predicted the post-war outcome would be what it is, which is ISIS taking over the country."

Maybe I'm wrong, but as far as I know, ISIS didn't really exist before 2003 - so how would the Pentagon have been worried about them pre-2011?

ISIS existed at the height of the Iraq insurgency.

Note the date on the photo of a US soldier with a captured ISIS flag - 2008.

So, who is "ISIS"?

Al Qaeda in Iraq.

Which is why Obama is running like crazy from dealing with them - they had to be '"the JV". Now there are thousands of US troops back there - but they're not in "combat".

Why?

Because they way they took over huge parts of Iraq and Syria to the point of carrying out large-scale terrorist attacks in the US and Europe along with requiring US troops being sent BACK to Iraq is pretty much what critics of Obama said would happen if Obama were to withdraw US forces from Iraq when he became President.

And Obama CAN'T be that wrong.

He just CAN'T

So there's no "combat" troops from the US there.

The attacks from ISIS aren't "terrorism".

Obama can't utter "radical Islam".

Because all of that are admissions he made a mistake.

Hint: Tim Cook is gay. He has no children.

Executives who do have children keep them away from computers. They send them to schools where they do not get iPads, where they do not stare at Swift Playgrounds, where they do not learn to code. That's for other people's children, apparently.

Another poster has already pointed out the inconsistency of the political term "liberal" in historical and modern contexts, but that's only one deficiency in your post.

Liberals and progressives don't believe in the power of the state.

The power of the state can originate in many places.
In western liberal political theory that place is the people, ie, the consent of the governed.
That is then represented though democracy, either direct or representative.

In theory, sure. In practice, at least in the context of the US (your country may vary), liberals/progressives tend to exhibit two severe problems. First, they overwhelmingly lean very statist. I have yet to see any significant US liberal/progressive who shows any evidence of looking for solutions rooted in reduction of regulation, government oversight, or government power. For them, government is treated like duct tape: if it isn't working, you're not applying enough of it.

Second, US progressives/liberals commonly fall into the "we know what's good for you" camp. For example, when Melissa Harris-Perry stated[1] that "sometimes it's the government's job to protect you from yourself". For another example, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz stating that "I'm driven by the idea that safety is really a core function of government...I don't think we should just let things happen to people and let them be stupid and the victims of the consequences of their actions. I think we can put enough obstacles in the path of poor decision-making." I elided only the intervening question from the interviewer, which readers can verify at the link - NY Times, so disabling JS might be necessary to view the entire interview. Maybe they do know what's good for the masses, maybe not. Regardless, their approach is to force what they think is good for us down our throats, instead of (OK, sometimes on top of) other options, e.g. public education campaigns.

So, Yogi Berra's folksy wisdom rings true here: "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

To be fair, US conservatives tend to have analogous defects, though rooted in different, mostly Christian, ideals. Both groups, left unchecked, would have us living under a statist fascist dystopia in no time, not by sliding down a slippery slope, but by traveling a road paved with good intentions.

I don't know if you live in the US. If you do, then please take off the progressive-colored glasses. If you don't, then chalk it up to us Americans doing yet another thing the wrong way - labor unions probably work well in your country, too, unlike here, where that is the exception.

The last few lines of your post, military juntas and so forth, are just sniping at strawmen, and do not merit a reasoned response.

- T

[1] On or about 15 Jan 2015 - sorry, couldn't find a link. Maybe a link wasn't easy to find due to how many even more batshit insane things she has actually said which got more coverage, such as her Darth Vader comments and her comments on the term "hard working". She was doing a quick review of laws taking effect at the beginning of the year, as journalists & pundits often do. IIRC the law in question was passed in New York to make it illegal to take selfies with zoo tigers, apparently to curtail maulings. I had seen other pundits mention the law prior to MHP, as these sorts of quick commentaries usually start in December, but no others had mentioned the motivations for the law. I assumed it was to protect the tigers. Sure, their digestive systems can presumably handle herbivore bone fragments, but perhaps they are less resilient when subjected to iPhone screen shards. Perhaps a rolex could lodge in their digestive tract, necessitating avoidable surgery. Also, there might be public outcry against the animal, potentially leading to an a

Many states already have this.

Only 7 states deny gun purchase to people with a diagnosis. Only 4 will deny it to people admitting themselves to a mental institution voluntarily.
46 states think that people who believe that they are mentally insane enough that they shouldn't be allowed to live outside a mental institution, that they need 24 hour mental health help - are perfectly capable of handling a remote murder kill device.
I guess they think that those people may only BELIEVE they are insane.

While only 21 state will deny purchase to people with a history of severe mental illness as judged by a court.
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...

Doesn't stop a terrorist from obtaining a weapon illegally, as with the Belgium and France nightclub shootings

Well... if you're gonna conflate that - why not just include and compare all those US cases that happen every year with those that happen in Belgium and France?
Oh... wait... you're only cherry picking points which you erroneously think are in your favor.
Here, let me do that for ya. You'll forgive the discrepancy in years of accounting - it sure beats your data, right? Right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Homicides per 100,000 population per year:
USA - 3.43.
France - 0.21.
Belgium - 0.33.

Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year:
USA - 10.54.
France - 2.83.
Belgium - 1.82.

It's almost as if USA has a much bigger problem with guns, regardless of the "outlaws can still get guns" canard.
And as they say in France "If it walks like a canard and quacks like a canard - you're full of shit."

Maybe not dissimilar views, but it's a tenuous stretch to compare them, so it's important to realize this is "whataboutism". The christians may preach against homosexuality, say some dumb shit from time to time, and try to ban gays from getting married in churches (most have no issues with domestic partnerships or civil unions), but they don't go shooting up, arresting (for merely being gay), hanging, or throwing gays off buildings to their deaths, as is happening in the mideast.
You have a handful of physically harmless but stupid hateful whackjobs in Westboro, and the only real religiously motivated killing in the US by christians of any relevant time frame has been against abortion clinics, which has killed all of 11 people since 1993. http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
No, not all muslims are crazy terrorists, the world would be on fire if they were, but there *is* a cancer growing within it that's making it far more dangerous than the other religions in the current age, and even Christopher Hitchens has attested to that.
This guy was an ISIS fanboi. The fact that the FBI cleared him just shows the FBI screwed up, possibly due to the threat of being accused of being "islamophobic" political pressure.

You need to check your list again. Using a red blue election map, 19 of the top 30 are in blue States, 7 of the top 10 are in blue States.

If you look at Gary, Indiana (a State that historically was Blue and switched to Red for the last election) - a city that borders Illinois and Chicago (heck, East Chicago is right there in IN as well and is one of the cities on your list!) and is the "low cost drug" haven for most of Chicago, it would be 20 and 8.

Likewise for St. Louis as a spillover from the leader, East St. Louis; that would bring the lists to 21 and 9, Blue vs. Red. Check the list - it's dominated by Blue states and Blue cities (with Gary, IN being one standout, as it's really a suburb of Chicago, and St. Louis being a standout from the spillover from East St. Louis).

NJ and IL lead the list, accounting for 7 of the top 30 - and they are both solidly blue. The only solidly red States that have more than one entry are LA and MS; there are 6 multi-city blue states on the list...

Hmm... 19/30, 7/10, 21/30, 6/8 - there's a trend here. Seems that blue States are about 2-3 times more likely to show up on this list...

>>How many abortion clinics/doctors have been bombed and yes, shot up, in the past decade?

Yeah, how about that? Here's a tidy summary from the Times.

As you can see, the writer had to throw in Canadian violence just to pad out his article.

But here's the thing: There is no Christian sect in America with the exception of the Westboro Baptist Church that sanctions violence. My knowledge is not exhaustive so please correct me if I am wrong. And every time that violence "in Christ's name" is committed, official spokesmen from every denomination you can name make a point of condemning it.

You have to see that it is different when violence is committed "in Allah's name," or you are simply not paying attention/only willing to see what you want to see. Sure, the Book of Ezekiel says some crazy violent things, but, again, every Christian denomination acknowledges those passages have been superseded by Christ's gospel of love in the New Testament. Try and get the Imans of any Muslim sect to likewise formally renounce the calls to egregious violence in the Q'ran; try to get the Sharia courts to renounce the penalties for the huddud offences, as stipulated in the Q'ran. Lemme know how that works out for you.

If you really want to do some good, if you really want to save some lives, work towards a Muslim Reformation. Christianity has progressed since the Middle Ages, Islam has not, and it is killing us.

Wide-spread legal gun ownership really does make people generally safer.

Except against themselves. Gun control should be pushed, not because of mass shootings, which are a small percentage of gun deaths, but because of gun suicides.

Most people who die from guns, die from gun suicides. But the interesting thing, is that most people who survive gun suicide attempts, don't actually end up killing themselves in a second attempt.

If these people didn't have the guns they have, they probably wouldn't have killed themselves. And because there's no way to tell who's going to feel sad enough to want to kill themselves, it makes sense to remove the most successful method of suicide from most/all people's homes.

Such bullshit argument.

Gun control is enforced everywhere in Europe, and we have a rate of mass shooting which is 10% of what you have guys.

You don't have significant ethnic enclaves (well, until recently) that are large enough they can be insular from other ethnicities, without an international border being there.

You also don't have historically based ethnic and racial economic disparity, many times enforced by economic and racial self segregation.

That was a recent piece in the New York Times Magazine, about racial segregation of schools by regions within Brooklyn, which is largely self-imposed ("we want to live in NYC for no good reason") and economically imposed ("but we can only afford to live in this economically depressed area").

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

Europe is just starting to have large scale emergent problems of the type that the U.S. has had for about 150 year (or 240 years, if you count Native Americans, or over 4 centuries, if you count the pre-constitutional United States as "the U.S.").

Welcome to our world. Strap yourselves in, Europe: it's going to be a bumpy ride.

The Democrats solution is useless: gun control doesn't work in the US. The Republican's solution is also useless: harsher prison sentences and more guns mostly just puts more guns in the hands of hardened (by the prisons) criminals. Both of these solutions give the government more power though. What an amazing coincidence. But I digress. Police are already using programs to predict criminal behavior. I think already-public information could be used in a smart enough computer to predict the most likely shooters. These people should then be given a reason not to want the world to burn. They're most likely to be disenfranchised, mentally ill, mistreated, and feeling trapped. LISTEN TO THEM and give them a safe way out. This does not necessarily mean following a psychiatrist's recommendations. A lot of psychiatrists are arrogant and even abusive (by good intent, but nevertheless) It means assigning a case worker who is not overworked, not underpaid, and is empowered to and genuinely wants to help. Does he need a job? Is his daughter sick? Are there voices in his head? No humiliating and confusing paperwork. No standing in line for three hours only to be told to come back another day. Just have someone get in touch. Make it very easy for the highest risk individuals to receive help. Ideological reasons often have an underlying cause. Omar might tell you Islam is the one true way but if you listen hard enough you may hear "I just wanted someone to talk to, and the fellow at the temple was there for me". Even then since you have someone listening and empowered you'll know when the risk is high enough to put FBI surveillance on him.

Ah don't be concerned about it, Apple isn't much of a fan of paying taxes anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...

Ah don't be concerned about it, Apple isn't much of a fan of paying taxes anyway:
http://www.nytimes.com/interac...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04...

how Obama has, yet again, failed to stop a terrorist attack on US soil.

Because Bush was so successful ignoring 8 months of daily warnings of an impending attack which led to the deaths of 3,000 people.

Are you seriously suggesting that the President, any President, personally take over security for the entire country to prevent these types of attacks? That their direct involvement will prevent this from happening?

You're as inane as the moron on my local newspaper site who said he's voting for Trump because Trump will stop these attacks. Trump couldn't even turn a profit for his casinos*, how is he supposed to stop terror attacks?

* Had Mr. Trump's revenues grown at the rate of other Atlantic City casinos, his company could have made its interest payments and possibly registered a profit. But with sagging revenues and high costs, his casinos had too little money for renovations and improvements, which are vital for hotels to attract guests. The public company never logged a profitable year.

Link to source

Nope. Amazon has done the same. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07... Amazon confusingly sold a book that they had the right to sell in Australia, but not the US, and rather than buy the correct rights in the US and honor the sale, they canceled the sale and "stole" back the sold book. The vendor doesn't eat it, the consumer does. The laws are anti-consumer.

In fact, Republicans stand for the status-quo. i.e., standing for big oil, big gas, big electricity or big (insert your favorite lobbying group here).

Is that why a Republican President (along with Republican-dominated Congress) allowed the fuck-ups like Enron, MCI, and Lehman Brothers to collapse, while a Democratic one bailed out GM, Chrysler (not the first one), and AIG?

China Plans Massive Sea Lab 10,000 Feet Underwater In the South China Sea

See, now America's attempts to keep them restrained in that area will be perceived as anti-science. Very, very clever...

If you don't want blackberry decrypting your communications and giving that information to anyone who asks; Don't use Blackberry.

Yes, that's true.

Blackberry has deliberately set themselves up as a third party to every conversation

That may be their design flaw. Or, maybe, that was one of the goals — to avoid becoming "a tool for criminals".

And before you denounce the "KKKorporations" and the "police state" over it, consider the arguments for banning of Yik Yak in colleges — by "offended" students...

Apple by contrast has gone to great lengths to ensure that they *are not a party to your information*

Sure, and that seems to be working out well for them. Is not capitalist competition a great thing?

There are some details that you left out that actually enhance the case you made:

1. As a US Senator at the time, Hillary VOTED for the war in which these vets served and many were wounded. Trump, regardless of what one thinks of his statements about his position on the war, had no actual role in or responsibility for sending the soldiers to war. As a result, SHE is the one who has actual moral culpability.

2. Clinton funnels her charity through the Clinton foundation which has a bad reputation for siphoning-off up to 80% of funds for "overhead". Trump just had his regular people handle the matter. As a result, every dollar Trump reports as donated goes in-full and is likely twice as big when it reached the vet as a dollar Hillary reports as donated.

3. In the 1980s when Nancy Reagan was in the White House as Ron's first lady, Democrats routinely criticized Nancy for her expensive wardrobe. Nancy was a former Hollywood actress of the silver screen era and made a lot of the political women in DC look a bit shabby. There were articles in the New York Times and other lefty outlets that made a big issue out of the costs of her clothes and claimed this was proof she and Ron were elitists who were out of touch with normal people. Then when it was discovered that she had NOT spent enormous sums on the clothes but had borrowed them from the designers, THAT became the new meme about how awful she was. The left-wing press used every detail of the woman's clothes as proof she was evil. With Hillary the ranting is even louder of course....oh, no... wait....{crickets}

People who do not pay attention do not realize just how dishonest, hypocritical, biased and untrustworthy the so-called mainstream press (New York Times, Washington Post, etc) are and therefore why so many Republicans and/or conservatives (NOT the same thing) do not trust them.

There are some details that you left out that actually enhance the case you made:

1. As a US Senator at the time, Hillary VOTED for the war in which these vets served and many were wounded. Trump, regardless of what one thinks of his statements about his position on the war, had no actual role in or responsibility for sending the soldiers to war. As a result, SHE is the one who has actual moral culpability.

2. Clinton funnels her charity through the Clinton foundation which has a bad reputation for siphoning-off up to 80% of funds for "overhead". Trump just had his regular people handle the matter. As a result, every dollar Trump reports as donated goes in-full and is likely twice as big when it reached the vet as a dollar Hillary reports as donated.

3. In the 1980s when Nancy Reagan was in the White House as Ron's first lady, Democrats routinely criticized Nancy for her expensive wardrobe. Nancy was a former Hollywood actress of the silver screen era and made a lot of the political women in DC look a bit shabby. There were articles in the New York Times and other lefty outlets that made a big issue out of the costs of her clothes and claimed this was proof she and Ron were elitists who were out of touch with normal people. Then when it was discovered that she had NOT spent enormous sums on the clothes but had borrowed them from the designers, THAT became the new meme about how awful she was. The left-wing press used every detail of the woman's clothes as proof she was evil. With Hillary the ranting is even louder of course....oh, no... wait....{crickets}

People who do not pay attention do not realize just how dishonest, hypocritical, biased and untrustworthy the so-called mainstream press (New York Times, Washington Post, etc) are and therefore why so many Republicans and/or conservatives (NOT the same thing) do not trust them.

NK cyber team will hack the vote so trump does not win as he will crush NK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06...

http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Why is Trump so different than Bush or all the other presidents who were compared to Hitler?

GEORGE W BUSH
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/campaign-stops/why-i-miss-george-w-bush.html

Less than a week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed 2,996 people, President Bush held a news conference at the Islamic Center of Washington. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” he said, flanked by imams and community leaders. “Islam is peace.”

It was a message repeated often in the months and years afterward. “Our war is against evil,” the president said, “not against Islam.”

DONALD J TRUMP
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/

Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
...
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.

Why is Trump so different than Bush or all the other presidents who were compared to Hitler?

GEORGE W BUSH
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/30/opinion/campaign-stops/why-i-miss-george-w-bush.html

Less than a week after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed 2,996 people, President Bush held a news conference at the Islamic Center of Washington. “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam,” he said, flanked by imams and community leaders. “Islam is peace.”

It was a message repeated often in the months and years afterward. “Our war is against evil,” the president said, “not against Islam.”

DONALD J TRUMP
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/

Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
...
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.

good link. I especially like this story from the results:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

...
Whether the donations played any role in the approval of the uranium deal is unknown. But the episode underscores the special ethical challenges presented by the Clinton Foundation, headed by a former president who relied heavily on foreign cash to accumulate $250 million in assets even as his wife helped steer American foreign policy as secretary of state, presiding over decisions with the potential to benefit the foundation’s donors.

Because they're not perfect saints who are immune from being the source of threats, accidental or intentional.

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/01...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

Also, they have a history of becoming embroiled in conflicts with Russia, including various incidents during the Cold War, and they don't share information about it. So we need to spy on them just for that reason alone; to prevent WWIII from accidentally breaking out where NATO, Swedish, and Russian borders join.

A company that makes IoT enabled thermostats. They once had a famous bug that caused the thermostat to shut off in the middle of winter this year, leaving their customers with freezing homes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01...

what make it 'uniquenly not a taxi' become even more strained and ridiculous then they already were.

Particularly when they just changed their app to allow their employees to more easily take breaks and fill up their gas tanks.

Waaahhhh? I thought Uber drivers could pick up people whenever and wherever they like, on their own schedule. Why the need to make it easier to have a break?

Yeah, Uber isn't a taxi company. In name only.

That same driver who just "happened" to be on their way to the same airport as you for the 5th time today.

what make it 'uniquenly not a taxi' become even more strained and ridiculous then they already were.

Particularly when they just changed their app to allow their employees to more easily take breaks and fill up their gas tanks.

Waaahhhh? I thought Uber drivers could pick up people whenever and wherever they like, on their own schedule. Why the need to make it easier to have a break?

Yeah, Uber isn't a taxi company. In name only.

Bitcoin has at least one legitimate use:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/11/7375771/microsoft-supports-bitcoin-payments http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...

Your argument is wrong.

Now watch him move the goal posts to say that only a few does not count... Absolute statements are always wrong. :)

Bitcoin has at least one legitimate use:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/12/11/7375771/microsoft-supports-bitcoin-payments http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20... http://dealbook.nytimes.com/20...

Your argument is wrong.

Now watch him move the goal posts to say that only a few does not count... Absolute statements are always wrong. :)

They're "requesting" it in the same way that Vinnie from the mob "requests" protection money.

That's what the "strong state", that Statists constantly bleat about, brings.

It is inevitable. If you want the government to "take care" of you: educate your children, treat your sickness, punish the "evil corporations" for not providing you the service you want or even in a manner you want, ban the speech you don't want to hear, etc., they will become big enough to be able to destroy you for opposing them:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have."

Vinnie from the mob backs his question by a threat of illegal activity: he will break your knee and/or window, if you refuse. The government does not do that — armed with the leverage given to them by the electorate, they may audit your tax-returns back into Stone Age, confiscate your bank-accounts, cancel (or not renew) your business license (somehow, operating a business stopped being a right and became a privilege), open investigations into your business practices (sexual and racial discrimination, anyone?). All legal, all enthusiastically supported by the same sheep, who claim, the money they pay in taxes "buys civilization".

I hope you agree that even if the government "can" currently do that (given that it's unlikely to prosecute itself for its own crimes)

I ask you again: what crimes? Please, cite the law being broken.

it should cease doing so

Cease what, exactly? Asking people questions about other people?

Honest question: Has Trump said things that are pro-union? Has he spoken out against Governors that want to suppress unions in "right-to-work" states?

No, not that I've heard...

Cause the way to prevent (or at least slow down) this sort of thing would be via unionization.

It was, back in the 70s and maybe 80s... It wouldn't help today... Unions have been discovering that they have little real power left, when they put their foot down, they have been losing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05...

The Union claimed victory, as they always do, but if you really read it, they lost.

Not in the short term, but in the long term. Verizon will now work over the next 4 years to adjust their business to marginalize the workers.

This comment is telling:

The unions say the company is more than profitable enough â" with nearly $18 billion in net income last year â" to support a large work force with good benefits and wages.

They say that Verizonâ(TM)s fiber-optic Fios network, which provides telephone, video and Internet service, remains lucrative. But they argue that the companyâ(TM)s interest in it has flagged because the labor costs are much higher than for its wireless business, which is overwhelmingly nonunion.

So Verizon makes money on FIOS, but because it is union, they don't make AS MUCH MONEY as they do on wireless, which is non-union.

Verizon does not care about the employees or the unions, they only care about shareholders. If you want this to change, supporting "unions" won't help, we live in a global world today. The only way to fix this is to change how corporations work, that would require the laws be changed.

This is going to change things the way "The Year of the MOOC" changed everything!

ou can't call up the New York Times or Breitbart.com or whichever media outlet you desire and tell them that they have to feature your opinion on the front page. Or on any page.

I am willing to bet you absolutely could call them up and demand whatever you like. They don't have to do what you ask, but no one stops you from calling them and requesting whatever thing you like.

http://www.nytimes.com/content...
http://www.breitbart.com/adver...

I found contact forms available on both pages, though you might get interesting reactions from the advertise with us link at Breitbart.

You do realize that layoffs remove people who aren't necessary to produce the product being sold, right? The cost of wages is the base cost of all prices; it is not business, but the consumer who pays wages.

Labor reduction is a good thing. The labor force moves to other things. How do you think food keeps getting cheaper? From where do you think all the manufacture and services jobs came from? What money are Americans redirecting to the growing Healthcare sector to enjoy more and better healthcare?

The average family put 43% of their income to food in 1900, with 38% of the labor force working on farms. In 1950, it was 30% of our income with 12% of our labor force on the farms (and an additional chunk in the laboratories and factories making tractors, pesticides, fertilizers, and diesel fuel to support the farm worker). Today, we spend 11% of our income on food, with under 2% of our workers on the farm. How many poor families should be starving right now so that we could have avoided the elimination of 36% of our farm labor force, and should we give up healthcare or the Internet to support these excess and unnecessary farm workers?

The thing is, for almost two decades here at Slashdot I've been seeing people say, "Unions? We don't need no stinkin' unions. That's for schleps, we're fancy knowledge workers, I can always go somewhere in a free market and get a promotion at any time. Unions would just hold me back."

Now, the communications workers at Verizon totally did just win a victory after a 6.5 week strike, successfully fighting back outsourcing just like this plan. But admittedly even I don't think it would be possible to organize a union and strike in a few months at MassMutual (there's so many possible delaying tactics, or just say you're moving up already-planned layoffs to wipe out any activists, etc.). If they weren't unionized already, because they thought they were untouchable white collars, then sadly they're just going to be put down in the bed of their own making.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/31/business/verizon-reaches-tentative-deal-with-unions-to-end-strike.html

Not like that has never been done before, or better. Mind the date: http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/11/science/undiscovered-bach-no-a-computer-wrote-it.html?pagewanted=all

How do the two compare? I know this Google attempt will not qualify as 'composed by Bach', so is there something special in the way the Google AI came to this awful sequence of notes? If the Google folk except it to do better, why did they not wait a few learn-iterations and publish that result?

Real estate "developers", venture capitalists, and other bacterial forms typically buy up buildings filled with rent-controlled and rent-stabilized apartments with the intention of illegally forcing the tenants out so that they can quadruple the rent.

Manhattan landlord Steve Croman hit with indictment charging he threatened, sued rent-protected tenants to force them out
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/nyc-landlord-steve-croman-arrested-threatening-tenants-article-1.2629980

2 Brooklyn Landlords, Accused of Making Units Unlivable, Are Charged With Fraud
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/nyregion/brooklyn-landlords-joel-and-aaron-israel-arrested.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0

Top real estate broker says his own nephew screwed him out of $100M deal
http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/top-broker-nephew-screwed-100m-deal-article-1.2339737

Yeah total bullshit.

After all, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services haven't proposed pulling Theranos's license (and hence qualification to do tests that can be reimbursed by Medicare and Medicaid), and haven't proposed banning the Theranos founders from running a lab for two years. Oh, wait, they did. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04...

After all, the company didn't just throw out all the results done on their machines in 2014 and 2015. Oh, wait, they have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/th...