Slashdot Mirror

As long as you don't let your local right wing party under fund it then it'll be fantastic.

Yeah, those nasty right wing AmeriKKKan$ underfunding Britain's biggest ISP?..

made sure the funding was enough and it's pretty fantastic

With sufficient funding, government can make anything "fantastic". The point is, competing private companies inevitably offer even better service for the same money.

I've yet to meet a Canadian or Brit who makes under $300k/yr and would trade their Health care system for mine.

Maybe, you are hanging out with a healthier crowd. Canadians certainly do cross the Southern border for healthcare.

And while you complain about sabotage of government-provided services, American healthcare system is an example of government's sabotage of private industry. What, for example, is the reason, I can not purchase a health-insurance policy from a different state? Capitalism works, when there is competition — after eliminating/reducing it to the point of mono- or duopolies in each state, the Illiberal Statists will claim: "market failure"! And transform American health-care into a bigger and uglier version of the VA hospital system.

Maybe, you are a Socialist, who'd like the government to be in charge of everything. But if you aren't, then I'm at a loss as to why you'd want them to take over the Internet-service provision and health-care, but not, for example, food-distribution or automobile-production.

You think there's no reason why the KKK wants a parade to honor him?

Seems that if Hillary were elected, at least a few KKK members would have been holding a parade to honor her, as well. http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

He has done nothing in his life for this country. All he does is chase money,

Creating jobs for how many people in that time? I'd say that's "doing something for his country." Why must we forsake our own personal interests in order to be seen as a "good" person? Would we be better off if he never built any of his projects? Would the people he employs, and the people whose construction jobs he created in building them have been better off if they weren't built? If his millions or billions suddenly vanished, are you really asserting that nobody but him and his family would be impacted?

Trump is a sociopath with zero political experience,

You must be a millennial. You MUST be.
1) Running a business successfully requires a significant amount of political deftness.
2) Having "zero experience in politics" isn't necessarily a disqualifying trait; George Washington had "zero political experience" before taking the office. Historically, the founding fathers LIKED the idea of "citizen statesmen," rather than "career politicians." So... there's that.
3) Pretty much every career politician has to be at least a little bit of a sociopath to reach national office. So I'm not sure calling him a sociopath is really relevant, either. You don't make that omelet without breaking some eggs, and you sure won't survive long if you're going to sit up all night fretting about the eggs you broke to make breakfast this morning.

The KKK - and the "racist vote" - is a fringe element of Trump's candidacy. They are an irrelevant sideshow. Are there racists who voted for him? Absolutely. Is the majority - or even a large minority - of his support based on racism? Absolutely not. If I thought it were all about party alignment, I'd be absolutely gobsmacked that a stalwart component of democratic support for decades - blue collar union workers - abandoned the Democrats to vote for Trump. But you see, I'm not so idiotic as to believe it's "party alignment" - I believe it's a combination of:
1) Trump was the only one speaking to blue collar workers in the Rust Belt; Hillary barely even showed up there, and took their vote for granted because she was busy MC'ing events with Beyonce and Jay-Z;
2) Hillary inspired all the excitement of a digital rectal exam in the Obama coalition voters, and as a result, a good chunk of them stayed home, so she underperformed Obama pretty much across the map.
3) There are a vast number of people who are not racist, but are watching their small towns destroyed by the loss of good blue collar jobs, and are scared about their future. They voted for Trump, who spoke to them - even if his policies won't work, he's promised them something. Hillary took them for granted, so they gave her the middle finger.
4) Don't forget that Hillary ALSO gained the votes of sometime-Republicans to help her along her way, so the abandonment is monumental: some of the other side was *voting for her* - myself included - and she still managed to lose historically blue states where working-class support for Democrats was very strong.

But the real clincher is this -- this is how I really know you're a millennial, because you seem to think that this sort of thing is completely unprecedented in American History, and can only be explained by shouting "racism!" --

5) Reagan Democrats. Google them sometime, and maybe you'll understand what happened to put Trump into power. It wasn't about racism, it was about economic security for a middle class way of life that is rapidly disappearing in suburban and rural areas, while the political class sprinkles their largesse around the urban areas where "right-thinking" people live.

A lot of fires too :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"As experts were reviewing problems with the US nuclear force, the Air Force was withholding the fact that it was investigating damage to a nuclear-armed missile in its launch silo caused by 3 airmen" (Jan. 23, 2016)
http://www.usnews.com/news/pol...
The internal secrecy even from top cleared US experts is also an issue. The newer accidents are just not getting reported to the public as much anymore :)

Knowing a lot of people in the US oil industry, at low and at very high levels, I have a different viewpoint based on what I've heard from them

No doubt you have. Conservatives have deep dislike of the Clintons - despite the Clinton's having passed the trade deals, deregulation, and gutting of welfare that Reagan could have only dreamed of.

Bragging about drilling faster than our capacity to transport - from the White House web site itself:

So we are drilling all over the place -- right now. That's not the challenge. That's not the problem. In fact, the problem in a place like Cushing is that we're actually producing so much oil and gas in places like North Dakota and Colorado that we don't have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it to where it needs to go -- both to refineries, and then, eventually, all across the country and around the world. Thereâ(TM)s a bottleneck right here because we canâ(TM)t get enough of the oil to our refineries fast enough. And if we could, then we would be able to increase our oil supplies at a time when they're needed as much as possible.

Obama administration approves sonic cannons, reopening US Eastern Seaboard to oil exploration

Hillary Clinton Tried to Push Fracking on Other Nations When She Was Secretary of State, New Emails Reveal

Yes, but you need to take into account Baby Boomers are retiring at an ever increasing rate, which impacts the rate. The age demographic of the nation plays heavily into the workforce participation numbers.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/on-retirement/2014/07/22/12-baby-boomer-retirement-trends

Actually, the numbers, as a percentage, haven't been this LOW since 1978. Go to the BLS, choose "Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate - LNS11300000", then change the date range to anything from as far back as 1948 to present.

US news and world report is hardly part of the "conservative blogosphere"

http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

And here's an essay from Betchall, the chairman of CPUSA:

http://www.peoplesworld.org/ar...

DiscoverTheNetworks is NOT a blog. They use public databases of political filings, financial disclosures, and names on boards of directors to illuminate the networks of the political Left. Stern is most definitely a communist. But hey, you are too, so who cares, right? But go ahead and keep rejecting anything any blog ever says - heaven forbid anyone ever compile all the information on a topic on a webpage for your convenient rejection.

"about organizing workers in a revolution against the controllers of industry so that workers get a fare shake."

yeah, that's what has happened [eyeroll]... which explains every organized crime movie, ever.

https://stats.oecd.org/Index.a...

Yes the US puts in a lot of hours and a high productivity.
But what do your workers get in return?
A good quality of living is worth more than lots of money.

http://www.usnews.com/news/bes...

Learn some history, dude.

You can certainly say this about most fact-checking, including that by Pulitzer-winners, which is now just as much partisan hacking as the rest of the "journalism".

The simple truth is, of course, the OP meant "Cold War" not "civil war" (in any country). Woosh-woosh-woosh...

Personally, I, actually, toured both Baku and Yerevan with my father in 1988 — Aeroflot was still flying to both capitals from my native Kyiv, and the trip was very educational...

She was not deemed negligent, but "extremely careless". That is the excuse Comey gave even after evidence was gathered as in similar cases. These are already prosecutions that have taken place and should show precedence to at least proceed to an indictment. So no she was not treated as others who have mishandled classified information. Even some of the FBI investigators are upset about this decision. Many references to this: example Gotta disagree with you on that one.

This case was already decided by the White House and on the tarmac of an Arizona airport.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blo...

Bernie Sanders is a bona-fide Communist, actually — a prominent member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Complete with nationalizing means of production.

He may be talking about making America more like Scandinavia, but the end result would've been more like Venezuela.

Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for Hillary to "disown" and reject the Communist endorsement.

http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

Us roughly 50% of the worlds medical research spending try again.

http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

U.S. Spending on medical research 131 billion there. Hey he is just that good.

In sum, the committee says, "Cover Oregon failed for two main reasons: The state acted as their own system integrator (like HeathCare.gov), and the state tried to revamp its entire health care system, not just build an exchange."

Seems to me that the state had more to do with it than Oracle. I am sure you are great at making "simple credit card web app" but if you have ever done anything with healthcare in the US it is a nightmare. And yes I currently work building software for healthcare in the US at a state level.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-08/cover-oregon-health-care-disaster-showcases-havoc-wrought-by-obamacare/

So they're paying millions of dollars for Oracle to claim they don't know how to do it? Maybe it is Oracle's fault after all... sales says "ok, we'll pad the budget, but it should be dead simple" and then implementation teams come in and realize they were actually undersold and then begin trying to suck all the blood out of a walking-dead project.

Oracle is at fault here for saying they knew the fuck what they were doing.

In sum, the committee says, "Cover Oregon failed for two main reasons: The state acted as their own system integrator (like HeathCare.gov), and the state tried to revamp its entire health care system, not just build an exchange."

Seems to me that the state had more to do with it than Oracle. I am sure you are great at making "simple credit card web app" but if you have ever done anything with healthcare in the US it is a nightmare. And yes I currently work building software for healthcare in the US at a state level.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2016-06-08/cover-oregon-health-care-disaster-showcases-havoc-wrought-by-obamacare/

We have fewer Americans in the workforce that we did a decade ago and that continues to decline.

This one is due in huge part to the baby boom and all of them retiring. Between that and a decline in birth rates, you're going to have a smaller workforce.

Not true according to Bloomberg : http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

The decrease in the labor force last month also probably didn’t reflect the retirement of more baby boomers. The participation rate among those 65 years old and older rose to 18.9 percent in April from 18.5 percent the prior month.

Not entirely true, according to US News : http://www.usnews.com/news/the...

In a nutshell, the baby boomers have aged and are now finally retiring en masse. After bulging into the workplace in the 1970s, women are no longer the force in the labor market they once were. Younger people are opting to educate themselves rather than work. And a less-than-friendly tone toward immigrants is shrinking the supply for some high-skilled jobs.

Not according to MSNBC : http://www.msnbc.com/all-in/fe...

In other words, a remarkable number of Americans are not only unemployed, but are also declining to seek new employment. That includes a striking number of 18-24 year olds, according to a new report from Demos called “Stuck: Young America’s Persistent Jobs Crisis.” According to the report, Americans in that age group had lower participation rates than 25-34 year olds or 35-64 year olds across the educational spectrum.

Thats just the first few articles on a google search of "fewer americans in the workforce", and no one would claim that those sources are slanted Republican or Conservative. They are from 2012, 2013 and 2015, and the trend continues thru today. But just to make sure, here's that same search limited to the last year.

According to the Chicago Tribune : http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

The problem is particularly pronounced among men between the ages of 25 and 54, traditionally considered the prime working years. Their participation rate has been declining for decades, but the drop-off accelerated during the recession. The high mark was 98 percent in 1954, and it now stands at 88 percent. A new analysis from the White House's Council of Economic Advisers, slated for release Monday, found that the United States now has the third-lowest participation rate for "prime-age men" among the world's developed countries.

And from CNN Money : http://money.cnn.com/2016/02/0...

1. Fewer adults are working
Only 62.7% of adult Americans are working. The so-called Labor Force Participation rate hasn't been this low since the late 1970s. The rate measures how many people over age 16 are working or actively seeking work. Back in the '70s, it was low because fewer women worked outside the home. That's not the story today. Now, three factors are driving the decrease in workers. The first is that a huge part of the adult population, Baby Boomers, are retiring. That's expected and healthy. It explains about half of the decline in the workforce.

The second is more young people are going to college and graduate school. They are studying more, which should be a positive for the nation. But the third one is alarming: some people have just given up on finding work. It's hard to qu

hmmm... sounds Familiar

Where have I read about this kind of thing before

In fact, even the big dogs in the press admit they've gone down this road before. Of course, they claim "it's different".

In the past, the media just went Full Stupid about McCain and his health issues.

I guess the difference is McCain released all his records and we knew what he faced health-wise. Will Hillary show the same courage?

About those cell phones the poor have - they're "Obama-phones" - and I suppose we should be thankful because it does increase the market for our wares. I've seen this effect in person:

1) Snopes link

2) US News and World Report link

There's no indication on the link you cited as to when or where they get their data. Here's something sourced a little better:

http://money.usnews.com/career...

I'd rather be governed by a different set of laws too. Wanting laws to be different is not in and of itself a bad thing, and - even if that poll is accurate, which is questionable (it's really easy to ask questions in such a way to get the answer you want) - that still doesn't imply that they're going to try to force Sharia laws on the non-Muslims.

Re: fences: here and here. It's unlikely to work because, with so much more border with nobody around, it's much easier to destroy or damage the fence and slip through before a response can be mounted, and that's if the crossing is even detected. It might slightly reduce the number of people coming to America illegally, but I very much doubt it's a cost-effective way of doing that. Why exactly are "anchor babies" a problem?

No, it's not always legitimate for governments to tax what they wish to discourage. There's no moral reason to do anything to the remittances. It's a regressive tax that does nothing for America's well-being.

So you're saying that we can just ignore economics because sometimes they get things wrong. Got it. Let's go back to bloodletting to cure cancer too, since doctors - and medicine - also get things wrong.

I don't see how kidnapping people - especially people in foreign countries - is going to help in the slightest. Also, I'm not a pacifist - there is a time and place for war - I just don't think we should kill innocent people. That just creates more terrorists.

There has never been a good, empirical study that shows porn causes harm. Less interest in sex is also not harm.

Porn, when created with the informed consent of all involved, should be protected. Child pornography (featuring actual children) would not, therefore, be protected. Child pornography that is just animations or drawings or whatever would be, even though it's disgusting.

Yes, Clinton or Trump will be the person taking office. Voting for anyone else is not dodging; I'm going to vote my conscience, as should everyone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It was some time ago to either move the open water events from the bay, or at least have a backup plan if/when the waters weren't cleaned up. The world sailing body was fired over pushing to move it.

Read their website and you see why: They repeat a claim many times that pornography is just a gateway that instills the urge to view child abuse somehow - never mind that if that were the case, half the population of the US would be trying to sneak into a playground right now.

Here's one example but you don't have to look far to find others:
  ------
[EiE President] Hughes says combining the policing of raunchy footage of consenting adults with advocacy against child abuse makes sense, citing what she says are high rates of teens viewing bestiality and group sex, and the potential that viewing hardcore porn could be a steppingstone to further depths.

"Bestiality and anal sex online, that's the new normal," she says. "This entire sex industry is tied together, so it's like fighting the drug war ... just completely ignoring the obscenity laws [but combating child porn] would be like saying, 'We've got a war on drugs, but we're only going to concentrate on meth and heroin.' That's not going to do a very good job."
------
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

lied, claiming it was NOT blocking?

Is this the same Facebook that's associated with Zuckerberg's Americans fora Conservative Direction which, like its partner phoney org "Council for American Job Growth" is actually a deceptive subsidiary of Zuckerberg's FWD.us and is designed to trick Republicans into supporting open borders, amnesty and foreign worker visas? THAT Facebook?

Why do people keep falling for this garbage? Facebook convinces people that their personal info and all the info on their friends and families is worthless, and they convince people to give it all to Facebook in exchange for "free" web page. Facebook then makes BILLIONS of dollars selling that info to the highest bidder and, along with their "partners", trying to manipulate people with the very information they gave to Facebook for free.

It's all the super-rich gaming the system. Remember: the huge boost in income inequality has come during the Obama years, and Wall Street has been pouring cash into Hillary for years and wants her for President. All those Hillary supporting Silicon Valley tech billionaires signed a letter opposing Trump, who has argued against their use of cheap foreign workers over American workers.

"The Big-Bang, that is placed today at the origin of the world, does not contradict the divine intervention but exacts it,â Francis said, speaking at a ceremony in the Vatican Gardens inaugurating a bronze bust in honor of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. "The evolution in nature is not opposed to the notion of Creation, because evolution presupposes the creation of beings that evolve."

more

You may be thinking of an atheistic assertion of evolution. That part is a non-sequitur leap from biological evolution, a leap which is both untestable and unscientific. I am not suggesting the illogical "evolution, therefore atheism".

Just a reminder, that the US seems on track to surrender its control of the Internet to an "International Body" — despite some lawmakers trying to prevent the Administration from doing it.

Countries like this — and even worse ones, where citizens' access is already tightly controlled or where "hate speech" is illegal — will now have more say over how the Network is run.

(If you were going to reply pointing out, FBI's attempt to unlock a dead terrorist's iPhone is "just as bad" — don't...)

Allow me to point out that this order is not issued from the Executive branch. It is from the Judiciary branch. Nothing to do with little tyrants elsewhere. Brazil is one of the most democratic countries in the world.

Just a reminder, that the US seems on track to surrender its control of the Internet to an "International Body" — despite some lawmakers trying to prevent the Administration from doing it.

Countries like this — and even worse ones, where citizens' access is already tightly controlled or where "hate speech" is illegal — will now have more say over how the Network is run.

(If you were going to reply pointing out, FBI's attempt to unlock a dead terrorist's iPhone is "just as bad" — don't...)

"Yet chipping away at bad laws a bit at a time has proven much more effective in the long term. Having people in office who understand this will be better than having blowhards who get blocked by the opposition constantly."

The president has the power to take a substance off the Controlled Substances list simply by executive order. He/she could, if desired, put an end to the DEA on the first day of office by just clearing the list.

Well that was new to me, so I engaged in a little googling and came up with this. Which goes into a bit more detail on this. The screwy bit probably being the treaties and the fact that these decisions have so far been left to the DEA, which is currently run by an idiot. A better route that doesn't have the president running roughshod over the departments that are supposed to handle these things is that the president fires the idiot and replaces her with a competent person who will schedule drugs appropriately.

My original point was made more generally than drug policy.

Zuckerberg is more of a conservative who has is on record supporting Keystone XL despite the known risk of environmental damage rivaling the BP spill.

See here.

Going forward I know I am feeding a troll, but I will explain just in case you really have the IQ of a four year old.

In this context the companies are consulting with ex-cia. They aren't teaching the ex-cia guy the ex-cia guy is teaching them.

If you're teaching something you must have some level of experience prior. There's only two types of people in the world that I can think of that would have experience data-mining social media; SJW's and individuals acting at the behest of a Nations security or military agencies. What the CIA does is obviously classified, but it goes without saying that people coming out of Govt organizations with this kind of teachable knowledge that *just happens* to align with the objectives our Govt has been requesting it's not a leap at all to come to the conclusion that CIA has been data-mining social media.

Oh wow, look at this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/...
http://www.digitaltrends.com/s...
http://securityaffairs.co/word...
http://www.usnews.com/news/art...
http://www.commondreams.org/ne...

google: Cia data mining social media

U.S. Customs is just a late comer to the party that's already been going on that you're calling me a conspiracy nut over. News is out man, Go home, and go to bed.

http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

Ah, yeahhh, ok then...............

Trump may come in on a wave of fear and flag waving but his power will be limited by his office. I predict that once he is in office he will accomplish little to nothing because the other branches will reign him in.

A lot of this is discussing how things work when Congress isn't backing up the POTUS. The last 6 years have basically been an object lesson in how little power a POTUS can possibly have, if both houses of Congress work as hard as humanly possible against him.

If, as appears likely, Republicans keep control of Congress, and they get their President, then President Trump is quite likely to have the full force of Congress behind him instead of against him. That will be a whole different kettle of fish. I'm old enough to remember when Regan was considered an extremist candidate. Then everyone looked at how weak Carter was, and said "How much damage could the guy really do?". Within his first 100 days, Regan essentially dismantled the New Deal. I remember people wearing black arm-bands.

Now you may be a person who agrees with what the guy did. That's not my point. My point is don't go into this thinking the next president will be powerless and won't change anything drastically. I've seen it happen.

If he did, he would have committed "suicide", twice...

But see: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/...

I hate to do this, mostly 'cause I like you, but that's simply not true - by precedent. To give two good examples:

1. Your home. If you're paid and current with your mortgage and the bank has not foreclosed and taken possession then the lending agency can not grant rights.
2. Your car, just like the above. The dealership or credit agency can not give the police permission to search your vehicle. Well, they can. It won't hold up in court.

So long as you're current then you have most every right you'd have with complete ownership. You own your house even while the bank owns it. You have the deed, they have a lien on the deed. The same thing for your car if it is not yet fully paid off. I'm not positive but I strongly suspect that if you're incarcerated and unable to make your payment then they still can't give permission to search.

You probably want to look up something called Contract for Deed.

So believe it or not, there are alternative processes where the deed is retained by another entity who is the owner.

How applicable this is to searches, I don't know, but you're not correct on the one part. And if you want to know about something truly deplorable, check out the cars seized when the owner let another person drive it, and that person got caught doing something unlawful.

Actually they are. There is a push to make birth control available in the US over the counter, like it is in most of the world. But the abortion lobby doesn't want it to happen, because they would lose a revenue stream and the power that comes along with statutory middle-man status.

That narrative was pushed, but mostly by agents who opposed Planned Parenthood and the like anyway, making their criticism suspect.

However, looking elsewhere, you see the concern may be directed towards the potential such laws as written, are meant as ways to circumvent the existing reforms of the ACA, if a bit less overtly than some of the TRAP laws.

In fact, Planned Parenthood of California supported that state's laws.

Now maybe it's not the case that the conservatives are up to no good, but are you surprised that they will be criticized and distrusted? And given that your own premise is based on a distrust of Planned Parenthood, you can't be indignant about it coming back to you either.

I guess only Nixon can go to China.

Can we please stop this tired, old, bullshit line about all of our tech jobs being outsourced?

http://money.usnews.com/career...

If someone can't find work as a software developer in the US, here's the reality: that person is bad at their job.

Productivity is soaring and has been for over 20 years.

Wrong. Productivty growth is lower than it has been at anytime since WW2.

productivity gains from automation and robotics go straight to Capital.

That already happened in agriculture a century ago, and in manufacturing 30 years ago. It is not happening in services.

Projections are for 38% to 45% of jobs in the united states to be automated over the next 17 years.

Lots of things are "projected". Finding actual evidence to support those projections is much harder. It is quite likely that AI/robots will automate many or most service jobs in the next 17 years, but there is NO SIGN of that happening today.

See subject: What about THE PEOPLE??? Reason I ask, is this-> http://www.usnews.com/news/bus...

* It concerns us all (the "little people" who fight the wars, & pay the taxes since BIG BUSINESS SURELY DOESN'T (Google, MS, Oracle, IBM, Apple, CISCO keeping it to the tech sector of course ONLY in those, etc.) -> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2... )

ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE FOOTING THE BILL IN TAXES - NOT THEIR ALLIES & BIG BUSINESS (they can afford to employ US citizens with computing security themselves, INSTEAD OF OFFSHORING or OUTSOURCING IT LIKE THEY DO!)

APK

P.S.=> I wish them luck though - but that wasn't just sarcasm above either... apk

This sort of thing is what one should expect when you start breaking down categories.

Initially fats were all one category. "Apparently fats are bad - stop eating so much fat." Okay.
Then different categories of fats were studied. "Apparently saturated fats are bad, other fats not as bad." Okay.
Then different types of those were studied. "Apparently monounsaturated fats are pretty good, but when polyunsaturated are concerned, most people get too much omega-6 and not enough omega-3 - and that can be as bad as too much saturated" Okay, this is getting complicated....
Then it keeps going: "Well, when you compare gamma lineolic acid to arachidonic acid...." Stop!

It's not that the earlier data was wrong. It was just categorically too broad. Even knowing statistics about individual chemicals isn't (ideally) enough, because the effects can vary depending on who eats it and how they eat. For example, potatoes: it's a little known fact that letting many types of starches cool (rice, potatoes, pasta) converts readily digestible starches into resistant starches, significantly reducing their caloric content and glycemic load. Or that eating iron-rich foods in many small servings over the course of a day yields significantly more iron absorption than eating the same amount all at once in a single serving. Etc. It's relatively straightforward to gather health data for foods, but often very hard to turn that into "universal recommendations".

stereotypical liberal intolerance to contending ideas

Why must I be tolerant of intolerance? If Trump wants to ban Mexicans and Muslims, why am I not allowed to try to ban every trace of Trump?

Because it's morally "the ends justify the means".

It's going outside the process just because you don't like the results. That's not how we do things.

Effectively, the rule seems to be "it doesn't matter how we do it, we *have* to stop Trump. BY ANY MEANS!!!"

People shout at him during speeches. That didn't work, so they started being rowdy. That didn't work.

(Not letting him speak - how is this any different in principle to censorship?)

They dressed up in KKK robes and *that* didn't work either.

(I read about a 16yo protestor that falsely accused a rally goer of sexual assault. Willing to ruin a man's life for the cause - that's some dedication!)

I'm waiting for the assassination attempt, because "STOP TRUMP" is more important than how it gets done.

In the newspapers, they called him as clown. That didn't work, so they called him a sexist. That didn't work, so they called him a racist.

I remember reading analysis a couple of months ago, where pundits were astonished (!) that people were still supporting Trump, even after they called him a clown! (What are the Americans thinking?)

Then it was his supporters. We're all under-educated, unemployed, white, disempowered losers who are angry and want to take our country back. You don't want to be part of *that* group - do you?

That didn't work either.

Then they turned the crazy up to 11. Trump is Mussolini, Stalin, Satan, Hitler. The Washington Post said Cthulhu supports Trump.

That didn't work. Now it's backroom deals, delegate stealing, and rule changes.

Here on Slashdot, most of the political dialogue is name calling and unfounded drivel. We're the smart ones in the room, and even *we* have bought into the hatred. No one can put together a cogent political argument, simply because the other candidates don't have a clear position.

200 people control the election, and they do NOT want someone who will make the place better for the citizens.

It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets, so long as he doesn't get 1237 on the first try. So long as we can prevent *that*, we can drop him from the race and pick someone we support.

It's as if voting doesn't matter.

The ends justify the means. Stop Trump using ANY MEANS POSSIBLE!

Setting aside the issue of large loans in general, there are some deceptive tactics of for-profit schools in trying to get that sweet, sweet GI bill money. I think that crap needs to get shut down.

They are meaningless terms if you happen to be big enough to draw the ire of the Federal government. For example, http://www.usnews.com/news/art...

http://www.usnews.com/news/pol...

Why? What is your reasoning? We already have one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world.

No, in fact, we have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.

Explain logically why an increase in taxes to 1% of all people necessitates a 100% elimination of taxes to the same people when they own a corporation.

Because the effective corporate tax rate is the sum of the taxes paid on profits by both corporations and investors. So, if you increase capital gains taxes, you need to decrease taxes on corporate profits, otherwise people will invest their money in other things that corporations; and you want people to invest their money in US corporations because that creates jobs.

I actually think eliminating taxes on corporate profits and taxing capital gains as regular income may be a very good thing, because it would make investments much more attractive to people with lower incomes. It would also eliminate this confusing non-issue from future political discussions.

I know how much you ACs love to hate on the president, but at least get your facts straight. The last time a president had as few executive orders per year (over the term of his presidency) as Obama was when Grover Cleveland was president.

As the saying goes, it's not the quantity... it's the quality.

I don't recall Grover Cleveland (or any other president) telling the Justice department not to defend a law(*). Or making an executive order that in effect makes up a new law (and contravenes existing law).

How about his executive orders to kill an American citizen without trial, or that citizens' teenage son (also an American citizen) two weeks later?

But you're right - Obama is way better than other recent presidents because he doesn't issue *as many* executive orders!

(*) That law should have been axed decades ago, but getting rid of it *by that method* is wrong.

Copy/paste error. Link should be here, instead

Here is some help with that:

Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research Budget

In another discussion I provided the link below. Have you read it yet?:

Democrats Were Wrong on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - The White House called for tighter regulation 17 times

Except for Rand Paul: http://www.usnews.com/news/art...