Slashdot Mirror

From what I've seen there is 4 sites you should never listen to

I don't know what you're on about (or your ulterior motive), but I just read Peter Bright's summary on Ars, and it was just fine—yeoman's work—modulo 2017. BTW, "never" is a long time and a broad brush and also a brush that points in both directions.

I miss Jon Stokes from way back something fierce, but that's not even true: I miss the era where the articles that Jon Stokes was writing could be written. AK-47[*], more than a billion transistors ago.

[*] Uh, I meant 'aka'. Turns out Jon is an AR-15 nut (in one rant, he really carves the word "need" a new one), and all that stuff is not my speed, but then again, it's a free world.

—

Way off topic, but here goes.

What Jon wrote:

By banning popular cosmetic features and specific models of semi-automatic long guns, the AWB succeeded in insulting, angering, and ultimately radicalizing gun owners while doing absolutely nothing about the drug-related handgun violence that accounts for the vast majority of gun homicides.

The reality:
Assault rifles are becoming mass shooters' weapon of choice

Sorry, Jon, I loved you so much, but "drug-related handgun violence" is not a universal denominator in this debate.

Separate problems, separate solutions.

Fresh urine is sterile. Day old urine, not so much. Mother nature decided not to split hairs and gave us more or less the same revulsion to both. Besides, you shouldn't drink too much fresh urine, no matter how sterile. It's hard on the kidneys (which is way less hard on the body than thermal runaway due to terminal dehydration, so don't let your camel spill a drop).

In any kind of debate about purity, what instantly kicks into gear is a purity spectacle, because we all want to brag about our elite and inviolable pea-under-the-mattress gross-out threshold.

It's a method of social signalling where we implicitly brag about being clean, clean, clean.

For precisely the same reason that long hair on women is a prized signal: many dietary deficiencies make hair brittle, and thus long, even, healthy hair impossible to maintain. It takes years and years to grow hair out, so it can't be faked anytime soon after you've be pogromized (I am clean! I am consistently well-fed! I am not the reviled underclass!)

The social side of our disgust reflex is 75% purity theatre.

The other 25% is functional innumeracy. "I'm not actually very good at working out the real risks here, so I'm just rolling with optimal optics." It's thus important to make this signal look extremely automatic, and not calculated, otherwise even the dull knives begin to notice how it conflates with risk-assessment innumeracy.

Then you get this group of people who become so practiced at making their every emotional ripple look automatic and non-negotiable, they manage to self-destruct any form of ironic detachment concerning their internal emotional messengers. "I'm just playing the cards as they lie, emotions are never wrong—oh, those, poor, mangled trees."

Okay, honeybun, emotions are an evolutionary tool, and God took many shortcuts in order to pack our many survival instincts into such a small suitcase, e.g. cheesecake as an absolute good. (Or, maybe, constant war with your own self-image is a covert fitness fillip. Who can say, really? Human sexual drama moves in mysterious ways.)

Does a Urine-Revealing Pool Chemical Exist?

No, but we say it does to the worst of the usual suspects. By any means available, give the little buggers a sense of their every move always being watched (fine print: may contribute to risk-assessment innumeracy later in life—but who's counting? Only bunch of snivelling geeks, who are easy enough to ward off anyway with a mere half-hour ritual in front of the bathroom mirror every morning.)

Trump is obsessed with what his staff wears. Don't let their costumes distract you.

In a striking case of character assassination by tailoring, Sean Spicer, the president's freshly appointed press secretary, stepped to the podium over the weekend for a briefing that disappointed the president, The Washington Post later reported. He was wearing a gray pinstriped suit jacket that looked as though it had been hurriedly borrowed from a man twice his size. The sleeves were sloppy; the collar didn't fit; the fabric looked cheap. The tie was poorly knotted. The shirt collar was so snug that his neck overflowed its boundaries. Spicer's attire was not just a tad ill-fitting. It was distracting and sloppy. It epitomized the cliche style of the used-car salesman. Spicer's clothes wholly undercut a message that was already riddled with falsehoods.

Of the entire administration, only Steve Bannon looks properly equipped to survive a month in the Bedouin desert.

Qualified Immunity.

He specifically asked for help to ban Muslims, and "make it legal." He was well aware that he couldn't legally ban based on religion, so he did it based on country of origin, which is pretty much the same as race in the case of the countries in question.

He's a racist, and he sees Muslims and other non-christians as "the enemy."

One possibility is being told to do something wrong. Another possibility is being ignored or prevented from doing something right. This guy quit the CIA because Trump ignores the work that they do and instead makes policy decisions based off of whatever nonsense he reads on Breitbart. That's gotta be pretty demoralizing.

The term is at least 20 years old and was used with sincerity until Gamergate. Alt-right just picked up on it from there.

I was addressing the specific claim: that gun violence cannot justify gun control laws which may affect current gun owners because it's largely committed with illegal guns

I've never claimed that - I was just trying to keep my claim about sources more conservative.

But let's address YOUR claims then:

Followed by two paragraphs that in no way address any of the arguments I'm trying to defend (which aren't mine, by the way - I was just pointing out the nonsense in quantaman's post).

So in fact homocide rates as a whole DO go down - a LOT. ... Well good thing there is absolutely ZERO evidence that this happens, and no sane reason to think it MIGHT.

30 seconds of Googling (none completely unbiased, but they have actual numbers and citations, unlike some people):
Washington Post: Zero correlation between state homicide rate and state gun laws
Washington Examiner: No, states with higher gun ownership don't have more gun murders
Crime Research: COMPARING MURDER RATES AND GUN OWNERSHIP ACROSS COUNTRIES

It's because a gun is the worst thing in the world to for self defense. A tool that can only be reliably used...

Scaring people off is self defense, even if you never draw your weapon.

If he were really worried about people from countries that sponsored terrorism, Saudi Arabia should be #1 on the list. Unlike the countries he banned, which had ZERO 9/11 terrorists, Saudi Arabians were the vast majority (15 out of 19) of the 9/11 attackers, and their leader and financer, bin Laden, was a Saudi as well.

As for me "sounding like a butt-hurt liberal", I'm very happy Trump is now president. Unlike Clinton, who would have been business as usual, Trump is f*cking things up so much that the American voters have no choice now except to fix the system, including electoral financing, or face even worse in the future.

As I keep saying, you got the government you deserved. Clinton and the DNC's machinations were the deciding factor in Trump's election, not the Russians, by a vast margin. When you have a 2-party system with both parties corrupted and answerable only to monied interests, look in the mirror for why that happened. Maybe one day you'll become a democracy again, instead of a kleptocracy/oligarchy.

And if you don't, who cares? The world will continue along while you self-destruct. Both China and Russia are now bigger influences in geopolitics, and China now exceeds the US in terms of GDP when measured in terms of purchasing parity.

Strange how people say Greece is almost bankrupt even though they have a primary surplus (government income - all government expenditures except interest) of 2%, while the US has a primary deficit of almost $2 trillion a year. That's $24,000 a year of new federal debt for every family of 4.

The fears of conservatives with regard to Obama were based on facts that were entirely fabricated. They weren't based upon anything Obama actually said or did, but were often the result of conservative commentators simply making up horrible things out of whole cloth. Witness the whole birth certificate scandal that lasted for years.

By contrast, the fears of liberals with regard to Trump are based on Trump's words and actions. If anything, many Liberals have given Trump far more of a benefit of a doubt than he deserves. For example, many believed that Trump would be okay on Transgender rights, and then this happens.

Trump is a serial liar, but he has always been very honest about his intentions (despite widespread beliefs, this honesty is the norm among politicians). Conservatives were afraid of Obama because they thought he was doing or was going to do things that he never said he'd do and never actually did. Liberals are afraid of Trump because he's doing exactly what he said he would do.

Whatever I think about Trump's policies, or the man himself, his detractors are going to find a way to blame him for anything and everything because they have an agenda, regardless of the merit of the accusation.

Meanwhile, there are these antics by extreme leftists, and now I'm seeing topics where 'punching nazis' is the rational being coined as an excuse for assaulting Trump supporters. The hypocrisy is obvious to anyone who hasn't succumbed to their gaslighting.

Then I'm sure you can cite some of this research? The actual fact is that in recent decades, firearms accidents and murders by firearm have both decreased while the number of guns in private hands has increased.

Now, if you don't like guns, that's fine; like abortions, if you don't like one, don't have one. But if you're going to talk about an "overwhelming amount of research" about crime, you'd better be able to cite some criminology papers.

Having screamed for anti-immigrant violence and sexual assault becoming common place because of Trump, Illiberals could never offer any actual evidence. Maybe, this guy is what they need. Finally...

Yeah, that's why Robert Doggart was totally convicted, there was no evidence presented. And he didn't talk with anyone about his plans. Nor anyone else. The FBI is totally not reporting an increase in hate crimes either.

But hey, it's not like it's new in America. They even had the support of John Wilkes Booth. Remember him?

Meanwhile the number of victims of the "Black Lives Matter" assholes — the very foundation of their movement based on a lie — uncounted scores.

And then you read a few DOJ reports.

Gosh, I wonder why little old mi never mentions any of that. Is it because you support the authoritarian and oppressive police state that they represent?

While more people find Trump credible than the old-school media, it still less than half the people who find him credible.

They don't.

Sorry, but they don't.

The destruction of credibility of the old-school media was self-inflicted - Trump merely comments on the obvious fact

You mean Trump tries to distract us from the General Sherman stuck in his eye. When your best excuse for your lies is that you don't know what you're saying, you are in serious trouble.

Have you never been directly involved in something that was reported by a journalist?

Dude, one of the first things you learn, whether a police investigator, journalist, or divorce counselor, is that a dozen people can have twenty different stories about the same event.

Having screamed for anti-immigrant violence and sexual assault becoming common place because of Trump, Illiberals could never offer any actual evidence. Maybe, this guy is what they need. Finally...

Meanwhile the number of victims of the "Black Lives Matter" assholes — the very foundation of their movement based on a lie — uncounted scores.

Bannon was just recorded on audio the other day at some meeting. The topic was Trump's clear mandate to disassemble the administrative state and gut non-statute regulations. That's the plan. They want to make sure if something's not in the statutory code it's not legally enforceable. The want to completely dismantle the Executive agencies beyond Defense, State, and DHS basically.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

http://www.nationalreview.com/...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Pai's not there to provide regulations or play games with regulations. He's there to remove them. "Improved demarcation" means in this context he wants to shrink what each one covers to the point there's obviously no overlap.

The First Amendment also includes freedom of the press.

I'm old enough to remember when that was true.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The title refers to 'mental illness', the summary adds 'psychosis' and finally links 'schizophrenia' to the bug. These are not interchangeable; each term is rather clearly defined in a science environment. Moving on to the actual study there are also vacillations between these terms. It's one of many things that casts doubt on the quality of the study.

You may also find a report at WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com... Where they have a lovely video of the rat/cat relationship that develops.

That's right, PP has not performed a SINGLE breast cancer screening, despite it being the first thing they list every time funding is threatened from them.

Planned Parenthood does clinical breast exams and make referrals for mammograms if warranted. Interestingly enough, its the group's supporters who talk about mammograms all the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/02/the-repeated-misleading-claim-that-planned-parenthood-provides-mammograms/

You cite an anecdotal article which does not apply to where most people are complaining about voter ID. Many elderly people, for example, lack an ID. In some rural areas it is also difficult to get an ID since the DMV is often a significant distance away and is open for a limited number of hours, often during working hours. Harlem has a very different makeup than rural areas and access to an ID is far easier.

Here is a better article. About 11% of Americans do not have government issued photo identification cards. A federal court in Texas found that 608,740 registered voters didn't have the forms of identification required for voting.

The amount of voter fraud in the United States is exceedingly low so the whole voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem. Out of 1 billion votes cast there were 44 cases of fraud, a rate of 0.0000044%.

There is also widespread evidence that such laws are designed to target democratic voters and that they tend to target the poor and minorities.

It's applicable to BOTH sides, however, and its fucking up our elections. For your consideration:

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

The Washington Post has a similar article centering on Milo Yiannopoulos' backfiring at CPAC, but more broadly about how many of today's conservatives consider themselves "reactionaries" to what they see as smug, liberal intellectuals hell-bent on making even the most moderate conservative feel like an asshole, only to find themselves embraced by an "extremely lucrative... conservative-media industrial complex" which encourages bullshit-artists like Anne Coulter and Yiannopoulos because being an asshole grabs air-time and sells books. Whether it's all in their heads is beside the point. The point is enough people think this way to turn an election, either because they voted Trump as above, or they stayed home.

Until the U.S. can get past this finger-pointing you're-an-asshole no-you're-an-asshole bullshit, we can only expect more of the same. Fuck all I hope for is that Trump doesn't start a fucking war on account of his completely dissing the nation's intelligence community: "[Trump] has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the 'America First' orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk." This ain't no shit - the last time a (vice) president ignored intelligence, like there seriously ain't no WMD's in Iraq, we wound up in a war which we are STILL paying for. The only question worth asking is, how in fuck did we get here, and the answer is both sides blaming each other and calling each other assholes, grossing out all the "normal people" until almost HALF feel too disgusted to bother casting a vote.

Yes, we need bullshit-detectors in a world that churns out so much of it, but we also need to learn how to be civil to each other... or we'll just wind up with more blow-hards running things as we just pray that the markets don't collapse or we don't wind up in another war (and Trumps' just crazy enough to re-instate the draft... you 16-to-twenty-something-year-olds put that in your bowl and smoke it).

It's applicable to BOTH sides, however, and its fucking up our elections. For your consideration:

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

The Washington Post has a similar article centering on Milo Yiannopoulos' backfiring at CPAC, but more broadly about how many of today's conservatives consider themselves "reactionaries" to what they see as smug, liberal intellectuals hell-bent on making even the most moderate conservative feel like an asshole, only to find themselves embraced by an "extremely lucrative... conservative-media industrial complex" which encourages bullshit-artists like Anne Coulter and Yiannopoulos because being an asshole grabs air-time and sells books. Whether it's all in their heads is beside the point. The point is enough people think this way to turn an election, either because they voted Trump as above, or they stayed home.

Until the U.S. can get past this finger-pointing you're-an-asshole no-you're-an-asshole bullshit, we can only expect more of the same. Fuck all I hope for is that Trump doesn't start a fucking war on account of his completely dissing the nation's intelligence community: "[Trump] has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the 'America First' orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk." This ain't no shit - the last time a (vice) president ignored intelligence, like there seriously ain't no WMD's in Iraq, we wound up in a war which we are STILL paying for. The only question worth asking is, how in fuck did we get here, and the answer is both sides blaming each other and calling each other assholes, grossing out all the "normal people" until almost HALF feel too disgusted to bother casting a vote.

Yes, we need bullshit-detectors in a world that churns out so much of it, but we also need to learn how to be civil to each other... or we'll just wind up with more blow-hards running things as we just pray that the markets don't collapse or we don't wind up in another war (and Trumps' just crazy enough to re-instate the draft... you 16-to-twenty-something-year-olds put that in your bowl and smoke it).

It's applicable to BOTH sides, however, and its fucking up our elections. For your consideration:

Jeffrey Medford, a small-business owner in South Carolina, voted reluctantly for Donald Trump. As a conservative, he felt the need to choose the Republican. But some things are making him feel uncomfortable — parts of Mr. Trump’s travel ban, for example, and the recurring theme of his apparent affinity for Russia.

Mr. Medford should be a natural ally for liberals trying to convince the country that Mr. Trump was a bad choice. But it is not working out that way. Every time Mr. Medford dips into the political debate — either with strangers on Facebook or friends in New York and Los Angeles — he comes away feeling battered by contempt and an attitude of moral superiority.

“We’re backed into a corner,” said Mr. Medford, 46, whose business teaches people to be filmmakers. “There are at least some things about Trump I find to be defensible. But they are saying: ‘Agree with us 100 percent or you are morally bankrupt. You’re an idiot if you support any part of Trump.’ ”

He added: “I didn’t choose a side. They put me on one.”

The Washington Post has a similar article centering on Milo Yiannopoulos' backfiring at CPAC, but more broadly about how many of today's conservatives consider themselves "reactionaries" to what they see as smug, liberal intellectuals hell-bent on making even the most moderate conservative feel like an asshole, only to find themselves embraced by an "extremely lucrative... conservative-media industrial complex" which encourages bullshit-artists like Anne Coulter and Yiannopoulos because being an asshole grabs air-time and sells books. Whether it's all in their heads is beside the point. The point is enough people think this way to turn an election, either because they voted Trump as above, or they stayed home.

Until the U.S. can get past this finger-pointing you're-an-asshole no-you're-an-asshole bullshit, we can only expect more of the same. Fuck all I hope for is that Trump doesn't start a fucking war on account of his completely dissing the nation's intelligence community: "[Trump] has little need for intelligence professionals who, in speaking truth to power, might challenge the 'America First' orthodoxy that sees Russia as an ally and Australia as a punching bag. That’s why the president’s trusted White House advisers, not career professionals, reportedly have final say over what intelligence reaches his desk." This ain't no shit - the last time a (vice) president ignored intelligence, like there seriously ain't no WMD's in Iraq, we wound up in a war which we are STILL paying for. The only question worth asking is, how in fuck did we get here, and the answer is both sides blaming each other and calling each other assholes, grossing out all the "normal people" until almost HALF feel too disgusted to bother casting a vote.

Yes, we need bullshit-detectors in a world that churns out so much of it, but we also need to learn how to be civil to each other... or we'll just wind up with more blow-hards running things as we just pray that the markets don't collapse or we don't wind up in another war (and Trumps' just crazy enough to re-instate the draft... you 16-to-twenty-something-year-olds put that in your bowl and smoke it).

The solution is not to add another complicated layer on top.

The proposed solution also presents a single point of failure for the cryptographic resource. If one company manages to get hacked, or infiltrated by one agent, or gets betrayed by one employee, everything will be lost.

Bruce Schneier had the analogy of putting $100 into each of 10 safes, versus putting $1000 into one expensive safe. The $1000 in a single place makes it cost-effective for a burglar to try to break in, while $100 in ten safes does not, even if the 10 safes are individually less secure than the one safe.

We've seen this principle in action recently: losing our clearance info database to the Chinese, and RSA losing its secureid seed database.

If the security of IOT devices is managed by one system, all it takes is someone to offer $500,000 to an employee for the root info (root certificate, or whatever the chain of trust originates from) and everything is lost.

Isn't this sort of thing just kowtowing to Trumps use of "failing" every time he mentions the New York Times in tweets or press conferences? We all know why he does that - spread enough misinformation about a companies situation and eventually enough people get spooked to make it true. The numbers don't show a failing company, they merely show a transitional one.

And in related news: Number of bankruptcies:

• Trump: 6
• NYT: 0

Correct. We should instead be posting articles about douchebags like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Microsoft, owner of Skype (which Microsoft changed specifically for spying, not that Skype was trustworthy under its previous owner either as The Guardian tells us, "Eight months before being bought by Microsoft, Skype joined the Prism program in February 2011.") and NSA "provider" since 2007-09-11 (the NSA's first PRISM provider) wants us to understand their "commitment to our customers' security". Apparently that commitment is as little as they can get away with.

That's true of every software proprietor, Google included. The problem is the lack of software freedom which is designed to leave users at the mercy of the only programmers allowed to inspect, alter, and publish improvements to the proprietary software—these are the very programmers users couldn't trust with their security in the first place.

Yeah sure they are.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
https://www.theguardian.com/te...
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/20...

>>You lose asshole.
Compared to you? Nope. with a dick attitude like that, you lose at your whole life.

You mean to say the FBI witch hunt to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a slam-dunk hate crime was nothing more than our nation looking into a mirror? Was Eric Holder simply fanning racist flames so that we could find the fire to "put it out"?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Race baiting is simply race baiting.

Nope, sorry, the DC police have been ,known make false arrests.

Y'know, instead of Chicago, maybe Trump should tell Congress to fix the actual city under the jurisdiction.

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

So the Clinton's go to some city to do some charity work and to give some paid speeches. How should they do that?

Should they use two different staffs? That's a lot of extra money and hassle.

Should they personally pay their staff to work for the charity? Sure, but they're spending a lot of their own money.

Or they could do what they did, have the charity pay for the same staff when that staff is working for the charity.

Sure they could have done it differently, but that doesn't seem fundamentally wrong.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

I don't know the full story of who was responsible for allowing those donations when she was Secretary of State. But if she was President they'd be completely detached from the foundation, there would be no opportunity for someone to donate to a Clinton charity because there would be none.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

A "power player" is not a government official, former politicians cashing in is not new, even if the politician might return to a position of power.

The difference is that Trump is currently President.

The Clintons never personally profited from the Clinton Foundation

They used it as a slush fund to pay their cronies and assistants, including Bill Clinton Inc.

The cash stream from foreign entities, via speaking fees, had already stopped during the campaign and would not have resumed for her term.

Promises were also made and broken when she was given the Secretary of State position.

ay-for-access is a sin committed by all politicians, Clinton more than most but that's at least partially because of her profile. But pay-for-access is about pay to the campaign or the party, not the individual.

Oh, really? Strange how much money the Clintons made then peddling access then back when Hillary was still a power player. How much do you think she or Bill are getting for speaking fees now?

Hey look and listen.

How long do you think it's going to take Pence to stage a coup?

Hey look and listen.

How long do you think it's going to take Pence to stage a coup?

But if they are whoever tasked at keeping the situation secure should be fired.
Nobody was fired after this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

The president gets to make the rules - everyone else just gets to make suggestions. So if Trump wants to overrule someone who tells him to not bring his android phone into a SCIF, he can. And the Mar-a-Lago example indicates that he might be willing to do exactly that.

Top secret meetings have phones barred from entering rooms. I doubt he can get around that no matter how much of an asshole he is.. Hes not Stupid.

Read it and weep.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.

Either you are very young, or you have a very short memory. Why would think the democrats are any better?

Think outside the box.

Republicans and Democrats are the same thing.

They are both your enemy.

Find another option.

Ah, another conservative rant, devoid of reality, devoid of substance, and contrary to what actually happened, which is very popular with the lie-telling set.

In reality, Davis was recalled because of his mishandling of the power crisis, which was consistently and repetitively blamed on liberals, leftists, and environmentalists, but turned out to be the machinations of a company in Houston, Texas. They're the ones who profited off inflicting chaos in California.

Of course, even despite this unearned victory, the Republicans spent the next few years frittering away in California, which was pretty bad for them once the Citizens decided they'd take control of the redistricting process, and crippling when the non-partisan jungle primary was implemented.

But now, you continue to lie about the driver's licenses letting illegals vote, you foment corrupt campaign contributions yourself, and freak out over law protecting victims of sex trafficing, by acting as if it legalized child prostitution.

I'm sorry s.petry, but you shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

But gosh, I'm sure you know all this, you're just too afraid to say it.

"...which would make it low enough to clear gas and sewer lines and to be undetectable at the surface.."

First, you probably mean DEEP enough?

And "undetectable at the surface" Sure - unless you nick things like the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage facility (which stores gas as far as 9000 feet down....)
(cf https://www.washingtonpost.com...)

Deep-tunnel digging is pretty much 90% about dealing with the unexpected, because that's the part that fucks you quickly, catastrophically, and often lethally.

That said, I wish him the best. The only thing I see as a barrier is, as usual, the lawyers. I don't believe that the current legal regime as far as who owns/uses/profits from subterranean 'property' is anywhere near where it needs to be to cope with what he's talking about. It's very much a wild-west show, because most of the law seems to deal with MINERAL rights, not access/use rights. Can Musk tunnel 100' under my house without my permission? How about the state capital? What if he's 1000' down?

Good luck, Elon.

Independent of what

"Independent" as in "free of conflict of interest". Trump was elected promising to "drain the swamp". The alligators are now all busy protesting their own importance. Maybe the bridges really are crumbling — but the people, who'd most benefit from our attention to the problem can not be trusted to justify it.

Even if the evil RethugliKKKunt$ have limited the benevolent Democrats' attempts to fix these 55000 bridges for eight years (including when the Democrats controlled the entire Congress and the White House), there was enough money to fix the 10000 most in need...

Remember the wonderful term "shovel ready"?

or is this just a hurr durr gubbermint post?

Well, if the government is to be trusted on this one, the government is failing to maintain the bridges properly...

The White house denied these as a hoax.

"These are obviously not real as those planets are orbiting around other stars, this is impossible as everything orbits around our Orange fearless leader."

This is prompting a huge surge in scientists all over the country to emigrate to Canada.

Maybe they should be going to Mexico instead.

Techies, like everyday tech-minded people, need to completely and fully understand that Republicans are their enemies, by policy.

Either you are very young, or you have a very short memory. Why would think the democrats are any better?

Yeah, Iowa's #43 in per capita Federal spending for 2013 based on the 2014 Pew Trust spending report, getting roughly $25B. (Source: Wikipedia...) Meanwhile, we were #37 on per capital Federal tax contributions for 2015 (roughly $24B). Sorry, I can't quickly find numbers from the same exact year, but 2013 vs. 2015 wasn't that much different. Really suckin' at the ol' government teat there, eh?

We'd do just fine without the coastal states, but we have no oil, and they have inadequate agriculture to feed their populations. It makes a decent trade.

Plus, we're just plain smarter than you coastals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

I miss home. One of these days I'll give corporate America the finger and move back to the farm.

In a tweet, Trump expressed frustration with what he views as a culture of leaks in the nation’s capital. “The real story here is why are there so many illegal leaks coming out of Washington?” he wrote. “Will these leaks be happening as I deal on N. Korea etc?”

Here's another data point.
The West's largest coal power plant will be shut down decades before the end of it's useful life because it's "too expensive" to operate.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...

Except according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal.

Umm... NO.

1 - There is no such claim in that article.

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn - national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump - but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

That last bit is the source of the claim. "U.S. officials" - NOT FBI. Not even "senior officials". Just "officials".

2 - It gets better. Or worse... depending how you look at it.
By the end of the article, it's not even "officials". It's "some guy(s)".
It's "individuals".

Both Flynn, a former head of the Pentagon's intelligence agency, and Kislyak, a seasoned diplomat, are probably aware that Kislyak's phone calls and texts are being monitored, current and former officials said.
That would make it highly unlikely, the individuals said, that the men would allow their calls to be conduits of illegal coordination.

That's not reporting.
That's pure CYA and imputing unsubstantiated OPINIONS to sources without actual information - while throwing around buzzwords which telegraph credibility.

Which is why you've read that and though you read "according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal".
When it's actually "according to some guys, FBI won't find anything, cause Flynn and Kislyak aren't that stupid".

3 - You know how they remake and reboot old movies? So it is still a story about same things... but it is different now?
Well... that is an OLD article.
Which doesn't match the findings in the new article, from the same paper.
As in, opinions presented in it have turned out to be, based on incomplete and FALSE information.
So false in fact, that claims of "the individuals" in that article are basically - LIES.

From claims about FBI "not finding any evidence", while the investigation is actually still ongoing...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn's communications with Kislyak.

To "former and current U.S. officials" outright calling out Trump administration for lying about "not" making deals with a foreign power.
Foreign power which is under sanctions BECAUSE OF CYBER ATTACKS ON THE USA.
Cyber attacks, made during the election which got said administration into the White House.

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

Feel free to connect those dots.
Particularly in the light of Flynn getting canned mere days after that article got published.
Cover your ass is a very popular game among those who practice "pants on fire" lying.

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who ha

Except according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal.

Umm... NO.

1 - There is no such claim in that article.

The FBI in late December reviewed intercepts of communications between the Russian ambassador to the United States and retired Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn - national security adviser to then-President-elect Trump - but has not found any evidence of wrongdoing or illicit ties to the Russian government, U.S. officials said.

That last bit is the source of the claim. "U.S. officials" - NOT FBI. Not even "senior officials". Just "officials".

2 - It gets better. Or worse... depending how you look at it.
By the end of the article, it's not even "officials". It's "some guy(s)".
It's "individuals".

Both Flynn, a former head of the Pentagon's intelligence agency, and Kislyak, a seasoned diplomat, are probably aware that Kislyak's phone calls and texts are being monitored, current and former officials said.
That would make it highly unlikely, the individuals said, that the men would allow their calls to be conduits of illegal coordination.

That's not reporting.
That's pure CYA and imputing unsubstantiated OPINIONS to sources without actual information - while throwing around buzzwords which telegraph credibility.

Which is why you've read that and though you read "according to the FBI nothing Flynn did was illegal".
When it's actually "according to some guys, FBI won't find anything, cause Flynn and Kislyak aren't that stupid".

3 - You know how they remake and reboot old movies? So it is still a story about same things... but it is different now?
Well... that is an OLD article.
Which doesn't match the findings in the new article, from the same paper.
As in, opinions presented in it have turned out to be, based on incomplete and FALSE information.
So false in fact, that claims of "the individuals" in that article are basically - LIES.

From claims about FBI "not finding any evidence", while the investigation is actually still ongoing...

Officials said this week that the FBI is continuing to examine Flynn's communications with Kislyak.

To "former and current U.S. officials" outright calling out Trump administration for lying about "not" making deals with a foreign power.
Foreign power which is under sanctions BECAUSE OF CYBER ATTACKS ON THE USA.
Cyber attacks, made during the election which got said administration into the White House.

National security adviser Michael Flynn privately discussed U.S. sanctions against Russia with that country's ambassador to the United States during the month before President Trump took office, contrary to public assertions by Trump officials, current and former U.S. officials said.

U.S. intelligence agencies were then concluding that Russia had waged a cyber campaign designed in part to help elect Trump; his senior adviser on national security matters was discussing the potential consequences for Moscow, officials said.

Feel free to connect those dots.
Particularly in the light of Flynn getting canned mere days after that article got published.
Cover your ass is a very popular game among those who practice "pants on fire" lying.

Neither of those assertions is consistent with the fuller account of Flynn's contacts with Kislyak provided by officials who ha

According to the FBI Flynn did nothing illegal. So why would he be getting sent to prison? He was "let go" for lying to Mike Pence, not for talking to the Russians. Shouldn't the narrative be that Trump is a dictator who demands loyalty from his toadies at all time and ruthlessly terminates anyone who lies to or embarrasses him?

Why? According to the FBI Flynn did nothing illegal. He was let go for lying to Mike Pence. The lesson here should be that Trump demands loyalty at all times, and lying to his people gets your ass canned ASAP. How is that bad, if you're a Trump supporter?

But the FBI says Flynn did nothing illegal. So, great, assume you can prove Flynn was talking to the Russian ambassador under Trump's direct orders. So what? No crime was committed. Also, if Trump is taking orders from Putin, why would Flynn need to tell the Russian ambassador what Trump was going to do? Trump would already have his orders from Putin, and no communication from Flynn to the Russian ambassador would be necessary.

Flynn was let go for lying to Pence about the conversation, not because of the actual content of the conversation. Shouldn't the narrative be "evil dictator Trump ruthlessly terminates anyone who does so much as withholds the slightest information from his people?"

Except according to the FBI, Flynn did nothing wrong. He resigned for disloyalty to the administration, not for illegal activities. So, even if Flynn was talking to the Russians on direct orders from Trump and you could 100% prove it...so what? The manner in which Flynn talked to them wasn't a crime.

And if this is part of the "Trump is a Putin plant" conspiracy theory, why would Flynn need to talk to the Russian ambassador about this, on Trump's orders, anyway? Wouldn't Trump have already received his orders from Putin via the dead drop in the 3rd brick from the left next to the fountain when there's a chalk mark on the mailbox?