Slashdot Mirror

"They would have to be increasing their shipping output to create 2,000 new jobs. Instead..."

Considering Amazon has double-digit revenue growth, and it's reported that they "shipped more than 1 billion items around the world for the holiday season, more than five times its sales last holiday season", it's obvious that they are increasing their shipping output, by a lot.

And, a holographic universe could be started playing at any time...

13 billion years not strictly necessary.

Which started with CNN running a comparison of Obama's crowd during the inauguration compared to a picture of Trumps inauguration 3 HOURS PRIOR to the inauguration start.

False. Your statement is a good example of a fake fact. When you get your news from "alt" fact sources and blogs, that happens a lot.

The photo from the Washington Monument was time stamped 12:01: right at the moment of inauguration. http://www.usatoday.com/story/... Not "3 hours before". There's also a photo time-stamped 11:49:43, and even a time-lapse photo of the whole event here: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/ru...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/da...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

That would be pronounced Obama. Is all your history this bad ?

Riddle, me this, does a yarn shop have any business telling me what I can and can't knit, or am I forced to buy from them regardless of what they allow?

Not quite true, only about 20 university sports programs pay for themselves. The remaining 200 programs are subsidized by general revenue. In general, the smaller the school, the larger the subsidy. http://www.usatoday.com/story/... (poorly paywalled)

Newsflash: sex isn't binary, after all, and intersex people are collateral damage in the pseudochristian jihad against LGBT folk:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.isna.org/faq/what_i...
http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

And the answer is almost always "administrative overhead". Some universities have more new administrators than new instructors. . .

Several Links:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

https://www.thestreet.com/stor...

In fact, a change to the government employment reporting came under Obama in 2010, as we're now using a different definition to calculate the "labor force", excluding people who have given up on finding work entirely, if I remember correctly. That changed the way we'd been measuring unemployment for the past thirty years.

This is incorrect anti-obama propaganda, and prime example of 'alternative facts'. Excluding 'people who have given up on finding work entirely' - that method is in place far, far longer. Obama didn't suddenly invent that in 2010. It is true that BLS changed the definition of "in labor force, seeking employment" in 2010 - but by extending the time limit to seek for job from 2 years to 5. Meaning if anything, the number is skewed towards more % unemployed, as now the time window of being considered "jobless" is bigger.

If you want to look for real fact fudging done by obama administration, look for downplaying of underemployment (ie shit dead end min wage jobs) instead.

As for raegan suddenly introducing that metric as implied in the TFA seems like equal bullshit, this time anti-reagan propaganda. The BLS metric was used at least since 1950.
Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

Wow, you got a lot of dishonest stuff there yourself. So lets start by addressing the first one.

Under Obama, we stopped counting people as unemployed if they gave up looking for a job.

Can you provide some citations for your claim? Because the only thing I recall being change was Obama making our unemployment tracking MORE accurate, not less. Here's my citation (and select quotes):

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

"the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), beginning Saturday, will raise from two years to five years the upper limit on how long someone can be listed as having been jobless."

So it used to be after 2 years someone would stop counting against the unemployment figured, and during Obama it was changed so that they continued to count for 3 years more. The only affect that would have is to INCREASE the unemployment figures and make Obama look worse, but they did it anyway to be more accurate.

"Stacey Standish, a bureau assistant press officer, says the two-year limit has been used for 33 years."

So the previous 2 year limit (which I had often heard as attributed to Bush 43, but never looked up myself) apparently goes back to Carter (1977)

What trump said was correct, from his view you could see what he said and could make the guess of 1 million, you can see that from the pictures taken from the area he was standing looking at the crowd. Him sending out his press secretary to make those comments on saturday were just plain stupid, wrong and lieing.
However the media is at fault for the way they are thought of, they start by picking on statement of "from what I could see, and it looked like" and saying that is a lie; easy to make the case of it being wrong probably not a lie. When during the campaign the previous presidency they would happily accept any statement as the truth from the democrats and continue to do so. If the media had taken a neutral standpoint and done the job of reporting then they could of easily roasted the press secretary for that briefing on saturday and could of made the push to have him replaced and might of had some support from anywhere but the minority.
For the summary the media decided to go back six presidents to show a change in the definition of unemployment, when they could of just used a recent example from obama changing the definition but that is not the story they wanted.

I personally remember when government data back early in the Reagan presidency went from reporting nearly 15% unemployment nationwide to well under 6% by redefining what "unemployed" meant.

Why go back to Reagan — a hateful RethugliKKKan — (with an uncited "drive-by" accusation) when a beloved Nobel Peace Prize winner did just such a big lie in 2010?

And, if we are searching for the first such lie, we ought to go to, at least, F.D. Roosevelt — another beloved Democrat — and his redefining the price of gold and silver.

I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.

I don't believe you.

I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him.

1. [citation needed]

2. Islam isn't a race.

3. Illegal immigrants do not have a right to be in this country... by definition.

1. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=racist+quotes+trump

2. Islam, like Judaism, is considered an ethno-religious group, granted not to the degree that Judaism is. Even if you don't want to concede that point and so it's not racism, it doesn't negate Trumps discriminatory remarks and proposed plans, which would fall under the larger umbrella of bigotry.

3. A person's immigration status isn't an invitation for racist remarks.

I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country.

If you mean that he would waterboard ISIS then I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for ISIS.

One way to judge a society is by how it treats its prisoners.

I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board.

If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.

If you think Hillary is better on this point-- considering that she enabled her husband's infamous behavior-- then you're a hypocrite.

You just equated a woman's worth to her appearance. Wow. Just wow.

"But Hillary!!@!11?!" A person's sexism isn't measured relative to someone else. Also Hillary isn't to blame for Bill's transgressions. Next you're going to tell me a rape victim had it coming because he/she wore a provocative outfit, was in the wrong place at the wrong time, and was asking for it. If you're going to say that Hillary "enabled her husband's infamous behavior" then you should look into becoming a gun control lobbyist because those pesky gun manufacturers definitely enabled those bad gunmen to do bad things.

It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty.

1. [citation needed]

2. argumentum ad nauseam

1. Refer to your own reply. So meta.

2. Yeah, this is getting to be a rather nauseating argument.

You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget.

1. He's not.

2. Just because someone directly challenges you or your opinions or ideas doesn't make them a bully. The internet isn't a safe space.

1. Fine. Again a technicality in terms of labeling. He's not a "textbook bully". Even so, that same article points to the fact that Trump is aggressive. The nice way to put it would be uncivil. But as nice as that label is, it doesn't erase the negative connotation that goes with it. On top of aggressive, he is rude, insulting, and disrespectful. He may not be a bully, but he certainly employs the tactics of one. Is that a duck I see?

2. The internet isn't a safe space. Better keep Trump away. I hear he doesn't like him or his ideas and opinions being directly challenged.

So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fac

I think less of people like you because you watched an adult mock a disabled person in front of a crowd and still supported him.

I don't believe you.

I think less of you because you saw a man spouting clear racism and backed him.

1. [citation needed]
2. Islam isn't a race.
3. Illegal immigrants do not have a right to be in this country... by definition.

I think less of you because you listened to him advocate for war crimes, and still thought he should run this country.

If you mean that he would waterboard ISIS then I'm having a hard time feeling sorry for ISIS.

I think less of people like you because you watched him equate a woman’s worth to her appearance and got on board.

If your wife or girlfriend isn't fat and ugly then you may be a hypocrite.
If you think Hillary is better on this point-- considering that she enabled her husband's infamous behavior-- then you're a hypocrite.

It is your personal willingness to support racism, sexism, and cruelty.

1. [citation needed]
2. argumentum ad nauseam

You sided with a bully when it mattered and that is something I will never forget.

1. He's not.
2. Just because someone directly challenges you or your opinions or ideas doesn't make them a bully. The internet isn't a safe space.

So, no people like you and I won’t be “coming together” to move forward or whatever. Trump disgusts me, but it is the fact that he doesn’t disgust people like you that will stick with me long after this election.

Virtue signal received; we're reading you loud and clear.

I read the wikipedia page too, but the prosecution's side ignores the technical reason why they didn't necessarily delete the files. I read an example of the file deletion thing, it was on these lines:
1. user1 makes a copy of the file for personal use (legal);
2. user2 makes a copy for sharing in his blog (illegal according to American laws)
3. user3, the rights holder, makes another copy of the file, for private use (legal).

If they deleted the file because of a notice on user2's link, the other users that had legitimate access to the file would have their legal property destroyed.

But about them not "playing nice", that's arguable, and my point is that according to the "rights holders", youtube is both a violator AND isn't playing nice, see 1, 2 and RIAA Says YouTube is Running a DMCA Protection Racket. They are all about how youtube and google are pirate heavens and are not helping enough in the good fight. In TFA they are talking about well-known loopholes (claiming/implying youtube should be doing something about it).

Megaupload was taking down the links for infringing content, that means that the alleged pirate lost access to the file, but without destroying the data of those users that were never accused of infringing anything. This is what caused controversy, the prosecutor thinks they should have deleted people's files.

The fact that they were complying with the DMCA notices the way google and everybody else does should be enough. People shouldn't have to do more than what the law says, they should to as little as possible. Specially if going through extra lengths would hurt legitimate users. Being prosecuted or not shouldn't be about playing nice with the powerful or about being one of them.
While megaupload is being prosecuted, and torrent sites are constantly being persecuted, Google is the big pirate. The best way to find a torrent is still googling FILENAME .torrent and to find a song is still youtube. They are not prosecuted because it is google.

First, context of what Snowden actually did....

We knew about what Snowden released since 2006, read it and weep: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...

From that article:

NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls
Updated 5/11/2006 10:38 AM ET
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

Now that we got that out of the way, let's see Snowden for what he is, an obtuse narcissist who was either blackmailed or duped into stealing a powerpoint presentation that gave names of programs we knew existed.

Today, Snowden is basically in prison in Russia.

I think he should come clean on what actually happened, admit the info was already available, and get pardoned. Same with Chelsea Manning and others who haven't gotten as much press coverage.

We need whistleblowers. Our government needs a safety valve for situations when the people who watch the watchers are not doing their job.

> I'm not sure outside the greens echo chamber

You're over 40 aren't you?

A LOT of these companies' target demographic are millenials.
They care about green a lot more than gen-Xers do.
And even if the companies are run by gen-Xers and boomers, it is the customers who drive a company's decisions (at least it does if there is real competition).
Green Generation: Millennials Say Sustainability Is a Shopping Priority
Deloitte Survey: Millennials Increasingly Driving Force Behind Electric Utility Transformation
Millennials Are Shaping the Future of Energy Efficiency
Get serious about converting to renewable energy, the under-35 generation says by an overwhelming margin

Well, maybe if you only ride in 5+ year old cars without upgraded sound systems.

As of 2015, the typical car in the US was 11.5 years old.

Huh, forget 5x ;) I just checked up on how much current prices vs. seawater costs have changed since I last looked.

Current price (Li2CO3): $12-14/kg
Seawater price (Li2CO3): $16-22/kg

Heck, seawater's almost at parity now. Last I checked, conventional carbonate was only about $5/kg and seawater was about $25/kg. There's some serious convergence going on - we may start using seawater sooner rather than later.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Who shut down the government?

Politics is the art of negotiating. Refusing to negotiate, or even meet with the other side shut down the government. The only person who wouldn't work with the other side was Obama, and funny, but when he finally negotiated with them, the budget was signed that day. Interesting how that works, huh?

There's 100% chance that their "junk detection algorithm" tagged this as something that would offend uptight pricks in the suburbs. Those kind of people will insist on junk being covered on renaissance masterpieces.

Reminds me of the guy who lost an election to a dead man, but was still appointed Attorney General. Let the Eagle Soar! Just don't let any nipples show.

Bzzt. You're talking about two distinctly different things now. Sorry, no they haven't been. And the intelligence officials are refusing to disclose anything.

Sorry, Forgot to ask for the source of where you go the names from.

so I searched

James Risch - Idaho (R) - should not be listed
http://www.spokesman.com/blogs...

Dan Coats - Indiana (R)
U.S. Sen. Dan Coats, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, is following this issue but has no comment at this time, according to spokesman Matt Lahr.
http://howeypolitics.com/Conte...
Marco Rubio - Florida (R)

Susan Collins - Maine (R)
Roy Blunt - Missouri (R)
James Lankford - Oklahoma (R)
Tom Cotton - Arkansas (R)

After searching for mark rubio, I came across this

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

I think you are taking the Senators who were calling for sanctions over Ukraine and lumping them into the "russia hacked" crowd, which smells a lot like actual "fake news" .

Which is what frustrates me about Obamacare. I can easily afford a $10 flu shot; I don't need insurance company overhead making it cost $25. I can pay $45 for a checkup, but insurance company paperwork makes it cost $65. I preferred ten years ago, when I could insure against major illness and injury for 75% less than I pay now.

And can you afford a major illness?

Here's an article from 2005 about the cost of cancer treatment for a child. As was legal then, insurance companies could put a yearly and lifetime cap on treatment - which the insurance company did, at $500,000.

The child reached that limit in less than a year.

Insurance isn't for the $10 flu shot or other routine care - insurance is for the expensive illness or accident. Now perhaps we should let children like that die because they are too expensive. Perhaps we should let anyone who needs expensive care die. But lets be honest with ourselves when we are comparing costs between systems.

So did the author of "Watership Down" today. And a foul mouthed comic died too.

Actually, Ricky Harris died yesterday.

And Richard Adams lived to the ripe, old age of 96.

Carrie Fisher died at 60. That's too young these days... But Ricky Harris was only 54.

"Another 40,000 comin' every day..."

That's something you'll need to backup with facts. In the past 10 years where I've lived various governments have caved under pressure to let kids get their L plates at an earlier and earlier age.

With the reference to L plates, perhaps you're British? Here is a Guardian article with some statistics in the first paragraph about decline in licensure among 17-to-20 year olds, as well as 21-29. Here's a similar set of statistics for the US.

That would have a lot to do with very little information being passed onto them and people complaining about it everytime they do. How they would love to know how many hours you spend behind the wheel, as you already alluded to :-)

So we're in agreement - without that data they can't do much more than average across the population. But that unfairly (for some definition of "fair") benefits some people while punishing others, assuming you believe in some notion of the intrinsic safety of a driver

Not only did it count for me, the insurance company promoted the classes and I was able to claim back the cost of the class from the insurance company.

This wasn't a class the public could take - it was a class about emergency driving, with lights and siren. It did involve going on a skid pad and learning how to drive through a loss of traction, as well as slalom and reverse-slalom as well as general situational awareness (there's no rear window so you have to track where nearby cars are). Most useful to me was learning driver "psychology" as it were, learning how people in aggregate respond to unusual situations and seeing lots of examples of the ways drivers can screw up given a surprising event means I'm rarely surprised by what someone on the road does. I've had to take evasive action several times to avoid an imminent crash and it's certainly helped to know the limits of the vehicle performance, the road surface, and what the other driver(s) are likely to do given the circumstances.

I don't expect the insurance company to promote or pay for such a class, and in fact they would have no business doing so, but if they took it into consideration it would be a sign that they were willing to individualize their notion of driver risk. But they aren't interested.

Really to be fair, flying a plane is a very different skill set than driving a car. It is a much more refined skill with a metric shitload of inference based on information provided by instrumentation. Where looking out the window becomes important a lot of information is incredibly subtle (at height the landscape can appear almost unmoving) By comparison one of the biggest problems with new drivers is they spend too much time looking at instruments in a scenario where pretty much anything can jump out infront of their windscreen at any moment. It's a very different kind of situational awareness, and personally I don't believe that being a pilot would make you a better (or worse) driver on the road but I would be happy to see some stats to correct me.

The biggest problem with new pilots is that they spend too much time looking at instruments, too. Most private flying is done visually and "seat of the pants", and a flight instructor will commonly cover up all the instruments if a new student is fixating on something (usually the artificial horizon) to try to fly the plane without a "feel" for it. We don't typically fly high enough for the landscape to seem still; it's typical for me to fly at 3500' or 5500' and I spent a lot of time lower than 2500'.

I never said that they were exactly the same skillset, and I don't have any data, but becoming a pilot forces you to become very very good at multitasking, risk management, planning ahead (both before you get in the p

You win some, you lose some.

Funny, that isn't what he himself said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

I will not negotiate with Republicans does not equate to coming to the table early and often as you claim.

I wasnt being all that serious. I'm not stating there is bias but just repeating that there is claimed bias.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Russia steps in and ends the Syrian conflict just to piss USA off.

Not wrong, but not right either. The US fucked up plenty in Syria. Russia just opportunistically threw a wrench into the works. The complexity of that war puts it far beyond your implication that anyone could unilaterally make a decision to end it.

Russia runs rings around the U.S. by performing cyberwar on national elections and demonstrates to the world that the U.S. system of democracy is a fraud.

It wasn't cyberwar, it was leaked information. It wasn't Russia. And US democracy isn't as fraudulent as you imply. The primaries dice are loaded but everyone with a brain already knew that.

Russia continues to launch more space payloads than any other nation.

What's your point?

China owns the majority of U.S. debt, hence the U.S. economy.

Not anymore. But more to the point, owning the most does not mean owning most of, nor does it imply or give ownership or control of the economy. It means the power to cause a recession. Wow.

China can, not only easily find but also, pluck U.S. military technology from a very large ocean as a demonstration of technical superiority that should not be ignored.

I regret to inform you that being able to use a crane to pull up a sleeping submersible drone is not a demonstration of technological superiority.

The only point you have right is that Russia is currently sending up more material than any other government. Your entire argument is impressively wrong.

If the House intelligence committees want to bury it, then why did they call on the CIA to brief them? Why would the CIA refuse to do so unless the facts are non-existent or incredibly shaky?

Pretty much any news outlet except for CNN:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

Does that eternal vigilance include riots and beating up Trump voters?

Sure, I agree hold him accountable but acting in violent ways when nothing except an election has happened is NOT the vigilance we should have or anything resembling the price of liberty.

So essentially, they could be saying "We have 25,000 government contracting positions for which we are being told that employing H1B visa holders can jeopardize the awarding of contracts. So for these contracts, when an employee leaves, we will replace them with U.S. workers."

She could be saying that, but considering her careful wording it is quite doubtful. The language of her actual article includes the same language CEO's are using to justify H1B labor today. This includes stating we need new skills for the new economy (with the implication her current and former employees couldn't have been retrained) and that the US government needs to redouble efforts to train more future employees (or else IBM will need to continue hiring H1B holders).

Obviously you cannot know for certain what IBM will do based on a self-serving and cryptic newspaper article, but based on IBM's history no reasonable person could conclude any changes are coming from them. Not based on these statements anyway.

If they "rebel", he will just shut down the entire department.

You forget that Rick Perry ("he") as a 2012 Presidential candidate, did in fact want to shut down the Energy Department.

He had a brain-freeze when trying to remember this in 2012. (Hey, it happens to all of us.) But perhaps he's going to get his wish fulfilled.

Exactly. So Donald Trump can admit he was making up crap about it when he protested that he won the popular vote if not for the illegals.

Why should he? There are 2 counties that make up the "popular vote" difference: Cook County (home of Chicago, Illinois, famous for widespread corruption and credible accusations of voter fraud), and Los Angeles County, a "sanctuary city" with lots of illegal immigrants, lots of whom are given driver's licenses, and are automatically registered to vote by the CA DMV.

Is that proof that there were "millions" of illegal votes? No, of course not. But there is no way to prove otherwise.

He has different cronies than the harridan. His aren't necessarily Wall Street Speculators.

It's early December. Maybe we should wait until his cabinet nominees are actually confirmed and in their jobs before talking about what kind of cronies he will or will not have working for him.

So far his pick for the Treasury (Mnuchin) is a Goldman Sachs partner and member of the management committee, like his father before him. After he earned a few tens of millions at GS, he left and started his own hedge fund. Then he and George Soros and another hedge fund manager bought a home loan bank out of bankruptcy, and Mnuchin became the chair of that. That bank was involved in several lawsuits over questionable foreclosures before they sold it for over twice as much as they bought it for. $1.8 billion for 6 years work isn't bad, even if their bank was responsible for 39% of all federally insured reverse mortgages during that time (even though they only serviced 17% of the market). They did get subpoenas from HUD though, but I guess that problem's going to go away, haha, right? I suppose he'll need to move out of his $26 million house in Bel Air, but I'm sure someone will keep it warm until he gets back.

His pick for Commerce (Ross) is a billionaire who spent 24 years working for Rothschild Inc where he advised clients about bankruptcy restructuring, including being the senior managing director. He's the guy who allowed Trump to keep his Atlantic City casinos and rebuild his business after one of his bankruptcies. He left Rothschild and formed his own company with $440 million to buy up failing companies and try to resell them, including steel and coal companies. Back in 2006 when the Sago mine exploded and killed 12 people, he was involved with the company who owned that, knew about the safety problems, and refused to shut down the mine. So maybe they really will bring back the coal industry, even if it kills people. He's also a former officer of the NY state Democratic Party and served under Clinton. Oh, and, as of 2012, he was the "Grand Swipe" (or leader) of the "secret Wall Street fraternity" Kappa Beta Phi.

His pick for Transport, Elaine Chao, is not only the wife of the owner of the single most-punchable face in the Senate, but she was also a VP at Bank of America and an international banker at Citicorp. She was also the secretary of Labor when the Sago mine blew up, so she can reminisce about that with Ross. After the Bush administration she served on several boards, including Wells Fargo and News Corp.

Oh, and when he's not busy running the entire country, Trump is going to continue to produce his reality show. I wonder if it's going to say "Executive Producer: President Donald J. Trump" or if he'll go a little more low-key. I don't think low-key is in his vocabulary though.

Also, kudos on "harridan", I had to look that one up. Nothing like going back to the 1600s for your insulting words for women.

> Believe it's pretty much been just Crowdstrike

No. Its 17 intelligence agencies.

> Meanwhile, Clapper says they don't have good evidence of a link to Russia.

What bubble are you living in? Zerohedge?
Clapper is director of the DNI which explicitly issued the statement referenced above.

Well in that case, you guys are next:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

No, not every piece of right wing journalism is fake, but enough that stories from them should be suspect.

Further, neither did I say anything about Russian spies. I said Russian trolls who, as you pointed out, deliberately try to insert enough fake "news" or falsify factual stories to divert attention or obscure facts. As I pointed out in my original post, Russian trolls will mod me down to try and prevent people from seeing the truth of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. When confronted with the truth they go into overdrive in St. Petersburg in attempt to do everything to discredit the facts, most specifically going after either the person posting the facts (me) or where the story comes from.

Even when Putin admitted he sent Russian troops into Crimea to steal it, Russian trolls still denied their dear leader's own words. They made every excuse for why the story was fake EXCEPT for the fact those are Putin's own words. In other words, even facts coming out of Putin's mouths are lies in the world of Russian trolls.

And that is what this about: countering blatant lies with the truth. Using facts to pummel trolls, get them to twist themselves into such a ball of anger they climb over themselves in a vain attempt to extricate themselves from the ball of lies they've spewed. It's quite funny to watch them first deny the facts, then attempt to deflect, then finally come full circle and deny their own words. What's especially funny is they're so simple minded it's very easy to get them to admit they're Russian trolls. Since they're all using the same script handed to them from their handlers, they use the same words and phrases in every post so their comments stick out like a sore thumb.

Recently a judge ruled that Bitcoin is not currency. So how could there be taxes due on something that isn't money that is based on money?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

He's not President yet - but he's already delivered 1,000 jobs, kept in the US rather than moving to Mexico. Seems he's off to a good start especially given the fact he has zero official, political power. But then, it's "just 1,000 jobs", right?

I fail at slashdot markup. Article is http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/03/09/japan-tsunami-radiation-fourth-anniversary-fukushima/24254887/

Here's the same story from USA Today. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.

I can show you hundreds of stories telling us that CNN aired 30 minutes of porn - and yet it hasn't happened. And just like those are all based on just one "fake news" tweet, your "other" sources are all based on that one exclusive RT interview.

Here's the same story from USA Today. In case they're a state-sponsored mouthpiece for Russia or some other government here's the same story from Fortune. I'll leave it up to you to do a quick web search to find dozens of other sites reporting on the story. Even Fox has a version of the story and while they're a mouthpiece, it's not a state-sponsored Russian one.

Of course you focus on the messenger far too much and ignore the more obvious. What guarantee do we have that Assange is telling the truth or that he is capable of knowing that for a fact. Let's suppose he knows that the leaks came from party X who he has reason to believe isn't involved with the Russian government. He could be legitimately mistaken and Russia could ultimately be the source of the leaks pushed through enough independent channels to hide their involvement. Or it came directly from Russia and he's covering up that fact for his own reasons.

Unless you're also getting fed the kind of classified information that gives you a better idea of the shape of the world, all we can do is speculate. However, I think a better way to go about that is to look at what's happened since the election and what happens going forward. If we never see any additional email leaks related to Hillary or the DNC going forward it's pretty safe to assume that it was someone who really didn't want them to get elected and since that even has passed, they have no further interest. Even Trump who was heavily on the bandwagon to put Clinton in prison has done a bit of an about face on it. Whether he really ever wanted to or not is immaterial, it was just useful in helping him get votes. However, if over the next year we continue getting more and more leaks, it's probably safer to assume it isn't Russia (or if it really is that they'll try to act in a way as to make it appear less likely that it's them in which case we need more criteria that we don't post to the internet where they can read about it) and is just some hacker doing it because they can or to shake the ant farm a little bit for his or her own amusement.

Of course there's a whole host of other sources that aren't Russia and it's usually safer to play the field unless you can't legitimately think of anyone else who might have been involved.

Without California Hilliary wouldn't have won the popular vote. She won California by over 2 million votes, a total higher than she got for the US overall. California is so overwhelmingly liberal that I don't think Trump even bothered with it knowing that it was hopeless. This is what the electoral college was designed specifically for, to preserve the power of the smaller states so that they don't become marginalized. Worked exactly as designed.

How does the EC "de-marginalize" the "smaller states" (which mean "states with smaller POPULATION"), when those "Smaller States" ALSO have less EC Votes?!?

No, the EC just centralizes POWER in a smaller, much-more CORRUPTABLE, group of Governmental Sycophants, who are all-too-often FREE TO IGNORE the will of the citizenry, and vote what is best for THEM PERSONALLY, F* the Unwashed!

What is unique about this particular election is that the NUMBER of REAL ("Popular") votes that the EC "loser" actually WON by is, by far, the largest in history. In fact, more than twice as large as the next-largest difference (2000).

A difference of well-over 1 percent of the entire voting electorate should not be able to be subverted by an Electoral College comprised of .0002% (538) of the population of Americans of Voting Age (235,248,000 in 2012). To reach any other conclusion is ridiculous.

Just sounds like more fake propaganda from Hillary fans that are still pissy that they couldn't force everyone else to buy into their brainwashing and SJW agenda.

(USA Today have themselves declared that they are politically biassed:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/...
)

"Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation...we have not changed our conclusions that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton." -James Comey, Director FBI, Sunday, November 6

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/...

"Given how unpopular Trump is with half the nation"
Trouble is Clinton is equally unpopular, perhaps even more so than Trump

No not really Clinton is ahead by http://www.usatoday.com/story/... 2 million votes, as of Nov 23, so she is not more unpopular. Equally in terms of statistics it is a dead heat, but don't make somehow one is more unpopular than the other

... we'll have yet another affirmation of our choice.

From: http://www.usatoday.com/story/... as of Nov 22, 2016:

Q: Who won the popular vote?

A: Clinton's lead of about 1.7 million votes continues to increase, largely due to an influx of absentee and provisional ballots still being counted in California. She has about 63.7 million votes to Trump's 62 million; her margin in California alone is about 3.5 million.

I'm not disputing the election results as per the Electoral College process, but "our choice" isn't as cut and dry as you'd like it to be.